W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > February 2013

Re: annotations and RDF

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:43:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CABevsUEciQQ7Qhpn9S5dxt4tZ77cjtHyLrV1NGrMY2yUHnqofg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dr David Shotton <david.shotton@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, Herbert van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>, Matteo Casu <mattecasu@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, Silvio Peroni <essepuntato@cs.unibo.it>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi David,

(And cc'ing the Open Annotation list as well)

Yes that looks fine.  If the annotation is about the citation, rather
than the paper, then it should definitely target a resource that
identifies the citation.  I don't want to comment on the use of Named
Graphs (see [2]) for the citation, that's your field :), but the
annotation modeling looks okay other than the use of dc:description
(see [1]).

The minimally different Open Annotation version would be:

_:anno1 a oa:Annotation ;
  oa:hasBody _:commentOnCitation ;
  oa:hasTarget <uri-for-citation-resource> ;
  oa:motivatedBy oa:commenting .

_:commentOnCitation a cnt:ContentAsText ;
  cnt:chars "I'm citing that paper because it initiated this whole
field of research" .

A multi-class solution to reuse your fabio:Comment class might be:

_:commentOnCitation a cnt:ContentAsText, fabio:Comment ;
  cnt:chars "..." ;
  dc:description "..." .

The relevant parts of the spec are:
[1] http://openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#BodyEmbed
[2] http://openannotation.org/spec/core/publishing.html#Graphs

Hope that helps!


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Dr David Shotton
<david.shotton@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 07/02/2013 14:54, Paolo Ciccarese wrote:
> We also use CiTO and FaBIO for storing the bibliographic data and those are
> based on FRBR.
> Dear Paolo, Robert and Herbert,
> I'm in Leiden at a conference with Bob Morris.  We've just had a brief
> discussion about the potential use of AO to characterize citations, where
> the generic CiTO terms don't provide sufficient expressiveness.  That has
> prompted me to look at the new Open Annotation Data Model: Open Annotation
> Core published last Friday.
> That document says "Typically an Annotation has a single Body, which is the
> comment or other descriptive resource, and a single Target that the Body is
> somehow "about". " Thus oa:hasBody defines the annotation itself, and
> oa:hasTarget defines the target of that annotation.
> If we now apply that to the situation of a bibliographic citation that we
> want to characterize with a new annotation, we must be careful to note that
> oa:hasTarget does NOT apply to the cited paper, but rather to the citation
> that exists between the citing paper and the cited paper.
> So we first need to define the annotation as applying to the citation, then
> to define the body of the annotation as something distinct from the citing
> paper, and finally to define the target of the annotation as the citation
> itself.  What do people think about the following, that uses a Named Graph
> to define the citation?  Comments welcome!
> Kind regards,
> David
> :citationAnnotation a oa:Annotation ;
>       oa:hasBody :CommentOnCitation ;
>       oa:hasTarget :citationNamedGraph ;
>       oa:motivatedBy oa:commenting .
> :CommentOnCitation a fabio:Comment ;
>       dcterms:description "I'm citing that paper because it initiated this
> whole field of research"  .
> :citationNamedGraph {
>       <Paper_A> cito:cites  <Paper_B> .
> }
> --
> Dr David Shotton
> Research Data Management and Semantic Publishing Research Group
> Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
> South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.
> Phone: +44-(0)1865-271193    Skype: davidshotton
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 16:43:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:22 UTC