- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:11:12 +0000
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> wrote: > Perhaps I will say something that you have already discussed at large, but > the more I think, and the more I'm under the impression that you want to > re-invent ctag:Tag with oa:SemanticTag. Am I wrong? I don't think you are wrong, but I would call it more like "Perform ctag functionality within the common frame work of Open Annotation Model." ctag, while a very beautiful and simple model ( http://www.commontag.org/Specification ), would in the light of OA also have big overlaps with the more general OA model. For instance - http://www.commontag.org/QuickStartGuide shows how to tag sections, paragraphs etc - which we have more general solutions for with selectors. With OA we give a common approach to do annotation, be it tagging, comments, semantic identification, highlighting an image, etc. I don't see why, when you look for annotations of a resource, you should then not be able to see the semantic tags described in OA? Using most ctag terms: <target1> ctag:tagged <anno1> . <anno1> a ctag:Tag, ctag:AuthorTag ; ctag:means <term1> ; ctab:label "term1" ; ctag:taggingDate "2013-01-28T12:00:00Z" . Using OA, here doing a (valid) "dual text/semantic tagging" as in the ctag example: <anno1> a oa:Annotation ; oa:motivatedBy oa:tagging, oa:identifying ; Using ctag: <target1> ctag:tagged <anno1> . <anno1> a ctag:Tag, ctag:AuthorTag ; ctag:means <term1> ; ctab:label "term1" ; ctag:taggingDate "2013-01-28T12:00:00Z" . oa:hasBody <term1> ; oa:hasTarget <target1> ; oa:annotatedBy <agent1> ; oa:annotatedAt "2013-01-28T12:00:00Z" ; <term1> a oa:SemanticTag, cnt:ContentAsText ; cnt:chars "term1" . So clearly the ctag version is easily expressed in OA, and a mapping should be possible to form quite easily; (forgive my not-quite-Manchester syntax below, I know it's embarrassing considering my work place!) ctag:Tag subclassof oa:Annotation ctag:tag subclassof [ oa:motivatedBy oa:tagging ], [ oa:motivatedBy oa:identifying ] ctag:means SubObjectPropertyOf oa:hasBody ctag:means rdfs:domain oa:SemanticTag ctag:tagger SubObjectPropertyOf (inverse oa:hasTarget) ctag:taggingDate SubObjectPropertyOf oa:annotatedAt (ctag:label would need a property chain, although that's tricky with literal) The only ones not covered are the specializations AuthorTag, ReaderTag, AutoTag, which we would have to explain as a more elaborate chain of the agent's type and relation to the document. ctag:means is a bit stricter than our tagging. We have different motivations you could use, oa:tagging is quite loose, oa:identifying is probably closer to what ctag means (and so I've included it above). However there is no direct reference to <agent1> in ctag, which is a bit odd, we can however say something about the role of <agent1>, using ctag:AuthorTag. I guess regular dcterms:creator, prov:wasAttributedTo or pav:authoredBy could work on the ctag:Tag. Note above that a ctag:Tag is not equivalent with a oa:SemanticTag - as the ctag:Tag represents that particular tagging rather than the tag itself. Our semantic tag is what is in the end of ctag:means, which is untyped in ctag. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 16:11:59 UTC