W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > February 2014

Requirements analysis for Use Cases (was: Re: Use Cases)

From: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:45:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CADUi7O6MQ=7184+012oJvOX4+R2dtPtdTJ8YMM2ej7TJ6NmTpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Nice start Rob.

A comment:

Short: Do annotation provenance issues belong in the IG discussion?

Long:
I'm not sure exactly how annotation provenance fits in annotation use case
provision---possibly not directly but rather, as you have started to do,
perhaps it belongs in the use case \requirements analysis/.  The need to
support embedded resources in annotations has recently left me thinking in
detail about the opposite, more(?) common, case of annotating editions of
documents as published on the web by many content management systems, such
as wikis.

Documents served on the web typically come equipped with a revision
identity of some sort.  I suppose that such an identity would be at the
heart of an oa:hasScope usage, or even directly as the annotation target.
The problem is that in many CMS' that support transclusion,  e.g. Mediawiki
as used in Wikipedia, a stable identifier like that of [1] is not the
identifier of a stable document.  In that example, it is possible to make
the document depend on an invoked artifact, namely a chain of Mediawiki
template calls, in such a way that the id does not change but the html
does.  Similarly, a behind-the-scenes change to the stylesheet referenced
in the Wikipedia html would provide a different rendering of the document
with, I believe,  no provenance trace accessible to an http client. Worse,
some of the html produced depends on a choice of skins made by the invoking
client.

By the above, I mean to suggest that the structure referenced by
oa:hasContext may be quite subtle and sometimes it may be impossible to
provide reproducibility between annotation author and annotation consumer.
  Should the IG discuss provenance problems in the context of its use case
discussion? Elsewhere? Elsewhen?

Bob

[1]  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annotation&oldid=594780924


--Bob


On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> The W3C Digital Publishing Interest Group is going to publish a working
> draft of a Note on Annotation use cases in the near future.  I have put a
> pre-working draft (whatever that means :) ) of the text up at:
>
>   http://www.openannotation.org/usecases.html
>
> Any comments, corrections, additions, etc are very welcome!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
>
> P.S. Bob, unfortunately data annotation directly isn't in scope of the IG
> work, but I've included it under the embedded resource use case to try and
> promote the discussion.
>



-- 
Robert A. Morris

Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd
Boston, MA 02125-3390


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, 25 February 2014 16:46:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:25 UTC