Re: New drafts - general comments and intro

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi Stian, Paolo,
>
> I agree the directionality is a useful notion to keep. But if it's at the
> cost of having such a statement as
>
> :ann1 a oa:Annotation ;
>   oa:hasBody <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**List_of_Presidents_of_the_**
> United_States<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States>>
> ;
>   oa:hasTarget <http://dbpedia.org/resource/**Bill_Clinton<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bill_Clinton>>
> .
> for representing that someone tagged the wikipedia page with the resource
> representing Bill Clinton, then we're doomed!
>

Just to be clear, I've never proposed to do that. I don't think it is
feasible. That is why in Annotation Ontology we had two different
relationships one for the classic body (and aboutness) and one for tags.


>
> This is indeed really counter-intuitive. To me the "tag" or "subject" (it
> could be a SKOS concept, a test-as-body, whatever) is the thing that
> annotates, not the thing that is annotated (NB: in fact while reading the
> previous versions of the spec, I had understood oa:semanticTag was playing
> the same functional role as oa:hasBody; I realize now I might have missed a
> big part of the motivation for keeping them separate then!)
>

I think the process of annotating has a target and a body. The body is what
the user attaches to the target. The interpretation of the value of
'attaching' varies. And we cannot force that direction for everything. In
other words, it is a matter of defining better the annotation (or the
annotation process). We have a new proposal that will be shared as soon as
it is polished.


> We really should focus on the functional side of things. Maybe the problem
> with "about" is that it's too much loaded with intuitive semantics that
> have in the end only little to do with the technical aspect of annotation.
> We should rather aim at finding a word that expresses a function (which
> carries directionality indeed).
>

That is what Rob and I discussed yesterday while revising the draft and we
think we have a decent solution for that.

Allow us a few more hours.
Paolo



 On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Paolo Ciccarese
> <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>  So unless there's a strong motivation I'm overlooking, I'd recommend a
>>> more neutral expression like "the body relates with the target". Granted,
>>> it's less informative, but at least it's not dangerous.
>>>
>> We had a discussion about this point while writing this version of the
>> spec.
>> I am ok with having 'related' replacing 'about'. The terms are both
>> generic
>> but 'relates' does not imply the directionality.
>> Given the example you provided I don't see alternatives.
>>
>
> I have always liked the "is somewhat about" definition. It has an
> implied directionality, which for most cases makes it easier to
> determine what is body and what is target.
>
> This is something I always found odd in the AO specification, where
> one had ao:annotatesResource, ao:body and ao:hasTopic - but it was
> there in particular to keep this distinction - classification would
> use hasTopic instead.
>
>
> My considerations back then in
>
> http://www.wf4ever-project.org/wiki/display/docs/2011-09-26+Annotation+model+considerations#2011-09-26Annotationmodelconsiderations-AnnotationOntology%28AO%29
>
>   From this example above (using aot:Qualifier) one could strictly argue
>> that for our annotation bodies, AO should be applied 'opposite' to how we
>> used OAC, as the annotation bodies have the aggregated resources as their
>> topics. We feel that this is somewhat counter-intuitive, as our motivation
>> was to find a mechanism for attaching rich descriptions to aggregated
>> resources. However, AO encourages specialisation through subclassing
>> ao:Annotation, for instance an aot:Note relates an ann:body as a free-text
>> note describing (a sub-selection of) the annotated document.
>>
>
>
>
> With "relates to" it gets quite blurry. I think the classification
> example is the odd one out - and we have argued earlier to use
> something like oa:semanticTag instead of oa:hasBody for that purpose.
>
>
> So if Antoine case is "someone tags a web page with its subject", that is
> not classification, perhaps it is identification.
>
> I would, if I follow the current draft strictly, do this as:
>
>
> :ann1 a oa:Annotation ;
>    oa:hasBody<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States>
> ;
>    oa:hasTarget<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bill_Clinton>  .
>
>
> And even for pictures:
>
> :ann2 a oa:Annotation ;
>    oa:hasBody<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bush_and_Clinton.jpg>  ;
>    oa:hasTarget<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bill_Clinton>  .
>
> We can't say it the other way, because
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bill_Clinton>  is not (in this case)
> "somewhat about"<Bush_and_Clinton.jpg>.
>
> I know however this reads counter-intuitive - we feel that the
> annotator should be "annotating the jpeg" above - not "annotating the
> former president".   We might above also do an annotation with both
> resources as oa:hasTarget and no body - but that does not say much,
> not without an appropriate motivation.
>
>
> With Antoine's "is related to" definition then this annotation could just
> as well been written both ways - so I'm not sure how this would help
> clarify the directionality, just open it for more confusion.
>
>
> It might also help if the appropriate motivations can help to relate
> the body and target, for instance oa:Classiciation does not state
> clearly where we can find the classification, and oa:Tagging how to
> find the tag. The use-case here is not classification, as
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bill_Clinton>  is not a classification
> type, but rather an Identification.
>
>
>





-- 
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
http://www.paolociccarese.info/
Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
+1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s),
may contain information that is considered
to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
any other party without the permission of the sender.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately.