Re: Review of future/core.html

Hi all,

I also like how the specification is evolving. Some additional comments to
those sent by Stian. Just for clarification purposes, I truncated the
original mail.

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> BTW - which of the annotation tools could be good for doing exactly
> this kind of email and review? :)
>
>
We definitely need a better way to follow theses reviews, sometimes it is
difficult to follow all conversations.


>
> 2) The document is split into several HTML pages, but there is no
> obvious link to section 2 etc. from the bottom of the front page -
> it's not very obvious where to go next.  Propose "previous   contents
>  next" links for top *and* bottom of every page - however the index
> page only needs it at the bottom.
>

That is true, at the beginning I did not realize where the other modules
were until I arrived to a link to a section in one of the other modules.


> 11) This section should clarify that semantic terms, such as semantic
> tags with oa:Tag would often be in the form of fragment URIs, but as
> this is not for the purpose of selecting a part of a resource, but
> identifying a concept, such URIs are perfectly OK and SHOULD NOT be
> specified using a Selector.
>

About semantic tags, I did not see any link pointing to further examples. I
volunteer to do some, anyone else interested? Maybe with examples I will
have some more comments about this section as right now it seems pretty
simple but I am not sure that is the case with semantic tags. I
particularly have a case with several semantic tags annotating a piece
within a document. Anyone else interested? Just to make sure I am
understanding what semantic tags are about in OA, @Paolo, typical cases
would be similiar to those modeled as Qualifiers in AO, am I right?

By now, some questions. How would it work if we want to have a descriptive,
human-readable tag but also a semantic tag? As we can have multiple bodies,
in principle, I can have both, but how should I make explicit the
relationship between the tag and the semantic tag? That relationship is
probably not needed if I have only one tag and one semantic tag, but I
could have more and then I would like to be able to pair tag-semantic tags
somehow, Would it be a named graph the way to do it?


> > 2.2 Annotation provenance
>
>
About the provenance, I understand that a complete mapping to W·C PROV is
provided in Appendix A. But some of it is also mentionen in the Description
column in the table with the properties. Are oa:annotatedAt and
oa:serializedAt subclasses of prov:generatedAtTime? If that is the case,
either you explicitely include the subclassing in the description for all
properties or none of them. Otherwise it could be confusing.



> Re PAV - Me and Paolo are preparing to release PAV 2.1 at
> http://purl.org/pav before end of month (I'll try to squeeze it in
> today!) - it includes PROV bindings and HTML view of the ontology, and
> would easily do the Darwin example.
>
> Nice to hear that! I will probably contact you guys as I have some
questions/comments about PAV. Is there any draft that you can share? A
while ago I was looking for a link to an updated version with no luck, but
I have not tried lately.

About 2.3.Motivations section. Can we group annotations and have a
motivation for the whole group rather that repeating the motivation for
each annotation in the group? If I use a software agent to annotate a
resource, the motivation is likely the same so, anyway to avoid repeating
it? (I have not read yet the multiplicity section, so do not know if
grouping is discussed there).

So, deadline for comments is today, is not it? Sorry to leave mines just to
the very last moment. What is next now?

Cheers,

Leyla