Re: "cite" and 'author of a quote'

Hi, Bob–

On 1/20/14 2:19 PM, Bob Morris wrote:
> +1
>
> As an aside quibble re Doug's path toward an example, and
> acknowledging that it is synthetic:  (1) I see no quotation  of either
> the cited wikipedia article or, within that, the given text attributed
> to Vannevar Bush. (2) I doubt that the wikipedia \article/ should be
> typed as a Person which is what it might come out to be, all other
> things being equal.

Well, I tried to link to Vannevar Bush's twitter account, but he doesn't 
seem to have one; maybe he only uses Facebook? :P

More seriously, I admit that my approach and expression may have been 
flawed, but I see a solid use case in deconflating the source of a quote 
from the identity of the person who made the quote, and doing so in a 
distributed way. I other words, I was quoting an article written by Bush 
(the actual source doc is the Atlantic, of course), and separately 
pointing to a relatively canonical URL for Bush's identity (one of many 
such sources that may or may not be maintained by the author themselves).


> It would be good to have  a plain text explanation, devoid of
> serialization examples, of who is annotating what resource, what part
> the annotator is annotating, and whether they mean to be saying
> something about the resource or something about the content of the
> resource along with what they are trying to say.  Then let the
> serialization begin!

Does the above satisfy that request?


> The targeted audiences (web developers) not withstanding, the one
> thing that is immutable is that something is not an OA Annotation if
> it is not a graph.

My goal was indeed to make something that could be used as structured 
raw material for a distilled graph.


> Most (?) of the effort of the OA CG has gone into
> RDF representations, so CG many CG participants could probably more
> meaningfully comment when confronted with an RDF serialization,
> leaving others to argue about the accuracy of HTML representations and
> the semantic agreement between them. Thus my +1 is really +0.9, since
> what I see emerging is more like working iteratively from both sides
> toward a use case for HTML serialization.

Yes, I am probably incapable of expressing in RDF what I want to 
represent... and I think that should be taken as significant. I think 
relatively few people would be able to. I'm aiming toward a syntax and 
expressive power that is simple enough for the average web developer to 
create.

That's what we have computers for: to extract and extrapolate patterns 
that would be tedious to do by hand; I realize that computers are dumb, 
and we have to meet them halfway; but people are dumb, too, and they are 
more important than computers, so let's make the computers work a little 
bit harder than the people.

Regards-
-Doug

Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 20:42:34 UTC