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

Hi Bob,

The provenance of the annotation, or the provenance of the bodies and/or
targets?

Provenance of the annotation is covered in 2.1.5 but could be expanded?  I
don't think that provenance of web resources in general is in scope.
 Annotating versions of documents is there in 2.3.2, 2.3.5 and 2.3.8.

Also, Memento made it through the IETF workflow and is now RFC 7089.  So
recording the datetime of the representation that's annotated now has some
official utility in terms of retrieving a prior representation :)

Thanks!

Rob



On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>