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

Dear Robert,
more work has to be done. Certainly one of our goals is to be aligned with
the eBook recommendations:
http://www.w3.org/2012/08/electronic-books/submissions/webooks2013_submission_17.pdf

We will be participating at the workshop:
"eBooks: Great Expectations for Web Standards":
http://www.w3.org/2012/08/electronic-books/organization.html
with the idea of presenting OA and bringing up those issues that are of
interest for us (including those you have listed).

Best,
Paolo


On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Robert Bolick <robert.bolick@gmail.com>wrote:

> Apologies to all for the dumb questions from a publishing layman:  does
> this approach work for ebooks in the same format and for ebooks in multiple
> formats?   That is, will the model enable ebook designers and ebook system
> developers to offer users the ability to annotate any aspect of the work
> and share the annotation with another user such that the other user is able
> to see the shared annotation attached to, or pointing to, the annotated
> target in his/her version of the ebook?
>
> The question applies to all downloaded ebook-like documents and formats.
>  Publishers of fiction, non-fiction, educational works, professional and
> academic works, etc., will be looking for open and practical ways for
> readers to place, track and locate annotations within a single instance of
> a work and, when sharing or transferring annotations, across multiple
> instances of a work.
>
> Cheers,
> BobB
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:51 AM, 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Robert Bolick
> Books On Books <http://www.scoop.it/t/books-on-books> site
> My Profile <http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/robert-bolick/4/8bb/ba2> site
>
>


-- 
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.