- From: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:29:57 -0500
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > >> 1. Positioning of Rendering >> Does Rendering really fit a section on Specific Resources? States and >> Selectors are about restricting the "extent" of a resource being annotated. >> But Styles seem quite different beasts. This is in fact quite explicit in >> Fig 3.1.1 that positions "Specific Resource before styling. Bar comment 11, >> there's also the quite puzzling fact that oa:styledBy is attached to an >> Annotation resource, not to a specific body or target. >> So I'd suggest to move Styles in their own module. *Or* to label the module >> as "Specifiers". Indeed, for a reason that I'm entirely grasping, >> "specifiers" include more than what is needed to produce Specific Resources; >> that could have a nice effect of fitting better the entire module as it is >> defined now. > > We discussed this in Boston I think - the thing is that styling could > have more or less semantic meaning depending on the annotation - for > instance an annotation tool could let the user draw on a resource, and > then in an annotation body the user might say "The circled part is > important for the area coloured blue" (where the two areas are two > specific resources using svg shape selectors, with colouring added by > style) . Hence to understand the annotation it is best to apply the > styles. > > However I agree in that styles do not make the resource "more > specific" - it is more of a kind of modularity. So your suggestion is > to simply rename the chapter to "Specifiers" and keep the classname > oa:SpecificResource? (as styles are attached to annotation) I can +1 > that. > > I (think that) I like Stian's "modularity" view as it applies to one of our central uses of annotation of data with data quality control assertions. In some of those cases, the Target is a database and the SpecificResource is the data returned by a query. The annotations assert Internal inconsistencies or missing data within that set (the "circled" data records) and those returned by another query (the "blue" data records). In one use of the above we do something about which I do not see many analogies for documents. That is, we sometimes regard the above situation as being assertions about \all/ data with a schema for which the queries make sense. At the moment, only one thing comes to mind vaguely related to that for documents. This would would be assertions about the failure of recommended semantics of document structure. For example, in English composition at school we are taught that the first sentence of a paragraph should always introduce the topic of the paragraph, and each paragraph should have a single topic. Every annotation asserting a failure of that principle can probably be asserted in OA in a single "modularization" sensu Stian. Bob Morris -- Robert A. Morris Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 IT Staff Filtered Push Project Harvard University Herbaria Harvard University email: morris.bob@gmail.com web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://wiki.filteredpush.org http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram === The content of this communication is made entirely on my own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or Harvard University.
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 14:30:44 UTC