Re: Plain textual bodies - summary of arguments and possible solutions

Thank you Bernhard!
Whatever approach we will all decide for, it is good to keep track of all
these aspects for future reference.

best,
Paolo

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Bernhard Haslhofer <
bernhard.haslhofer@cornell.edu> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I think the current discussion on supporting plain text (literal) bodies
> in the Open Annotation model is important because there are many real-world
> annotation use cases that attach such bodies to Web resources (e.g.,
> Flickr). Therefore I spent some time to summarize existing pro and con
> arguments and came up with possible solutions (with some help from Antoine)
> for representing plain text (literal) bodies.
>
> Here is the Wikipage:
> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/Textual_Bodies
>
> Apologies in advance, I tried to find and cite all arguments in the spec
> and the previous thread as precisely as possible, but might have missed one
> or the other. So please fix the arguments directly in the wiki. If there
> are other possible solutions, please add them...
>
> It seems that there are two possible solutions at the moment:
>
> 1.) Allow Literals for oa:hasBody
>
> 2.) Introduce a shortcut property (e.g., oa:hasLiteralBody) for plain text
> bodies
>
> I think both solutions are feasible and meet the goal of "remaining simple
> enough to also allow for the most common use cases, such as attaching a
> piece of text to a single web resource", mentioned in the introduction.
>
> If I had to choose now, I would probably prefer the first option because I
> am not (yet) convinced by the counter-arguments and it avoids the
> introduction of another property. Also, the motivation for using OA in our
> context (maphub, yuma, etc.) is sharing and exchanging annotation data on
> the Web and not building a formal knowledge base one can use for
> inferencing; therefore also allowing literals as bodies could easily be
> handled by an additional "if body.isLiteral?" condition in any OA parser.
>
> However, I understand that inferencing and therefore consistency is rather
> important for some other use cases, which brings me back to the second
> option as a possible compromise.
>
> Best,
> Bernhard
>
>
>


-- 
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.