Re: Use Cases

As mentioned in the thread you cite, we introduced an extension
oad:QuerySelector to oa:Selector that allows the specification of a
query that can be the object of a property oad:hasQuery.  To a certain
extent, sometimes only this property is needed to address your use
case, but  subclassing  oad:QuerySelector a URI identifies the query
language, which could be difficult to infer from the query text.
Conversely, sometimes the query terms can just hang on the Selector
and don't need formal identification as query text. Arguably, our
solutions are mainly convenience terms and serve some common cases
much as do the oa:Motivation common cases. That's possibly the
direction that would evolve from Paolo's arguments in the thread.

Using those notions, here's an example that probably is easily adapted
to your case, perhaps by introducing a RegularExpressionQuerySelector.
 This one asserts that anything in the SpecificResource that asserts
latitude beyond the poles must be wrong.

:anno a oa:Annotation ;
    oa:hasTarget :sptarget1 ;
    oa:hasBody <http://filteredpush.org/rangeViolation> ;
    oa:hasBody :invalidLatitudeText .

:sptarget a oa:SpecificResource ;
    oa:hasSource <urn:lsid:biocol.org:col:15406> ;
    oa:hasSelector :findInvalidLatitudes .
    :findInvalidLatitudes a oad:SparqlQuerySelector ;
     oad:hasQuery :queryContent .

:queryContent a cnt:ContentAsText ;
   cnt:chars "SELECT distinct ?x WHERE {
      ?x a dwcFP:Occurrence .
      ?x dwc:decimalLatitude ?lat .
      FILTER (?lat > 90 || ?lat < -90).}" .

:invalidLatitudeText a cnt:ContentAsText ;
    cnt:chars  "The value of latitude is out of range and invalid" .

A little closer in detail to your use case can be found in
http://bit.ly/1jIJiOW , where the annotator has proposed a fix to a
specific set of resources that are given by Key-Value pairs in the
domain vocabulary. It avoids the oad:hasQuery predicate.  To that
extent, it needn't subclass the Selector to oad:QuerySelector, and I'm
not sure whether that is good or bad.

Bob

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Tim Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu> wrote:
> So here's another idea for consideration for the Note on Annotation Use
> Cases. It stems from discussions about methods we might use to curate
> retrospectively digitized texts such as are found in the HathiTrust.
> Reactions?
>
>
>
> Repeated Segment Annotations
>
>
>
> A user wishes to target for annotation segments of a resource that appear
> more than once in that resource, termed here for convenience 'repeated
> segments' (e.g., a string, node or name that appears multiple times in a
> single digitized book). For the purposes of what's being expressed in the
> annotation, the user does not need to know (has not determined a priori) the
> exact number of times the repeated segment appears in the resource; the
> interpretation of the annotation is understood to be independent of the
> number of instances of the repeated segment in the resource. This use case
> is defined to address situations where the body of the annotation relates in
> the same way to each repeated segment instance. Similarly for a body
> comprised of repeated segments.
>
>
>
> Examples
>
>
>
> ·         A copy editor creates an annotation proposing a correction to
> replace all instances of the string "pleaf'd" with the string "pleas'd".
> Essentially the annotation is proposing a search and replace operation of
> the sort ubiquitous in modern word processing systems.
>
> ·         A manufacturer wishes to annotate all products of a certain class
> in his products database with a note that these items will go on sale next
> week for 15% off for 2 weeks only.
>
> ·         A publisher wishes to associate an annotation containing an
> updated email address with all author nodes having the value "Jane A. Smith"
> that appear in last year's journal volume.
>
>
>
> Notes
>
>
>
> ·         In the absence of an oa:State triple, the annotation would be
> assumed persistent even if some instances of the repeated segment are
> removed from the resource or  if additional instances of the repeated
> segment are added to the resource. The annotation is rendered inoperative
> (nonsense) only if all instances of the repeated segment are removed.
>
> ·         While challenging to address, this use case should be addressed
> since it can happen inadvertently as well as intentionally. Certain classes
> of selectors will be prone to describing/identifying segments that occur
> multiple times in a resource.  For example, in a lengthy text there is some
> small but finite chance that there will be more than one match for the same
> oa:exact, oa:prefix, and oa:suffix combination (e.g., the constituents of an
> oa:TextQuoteSelector).  As has already come up, we can anticipate that
> communities will want to begin using other kinds of selectors, e.g., CSS,
> XPath/XPpointer, SQL-based, SPARQL-based, etc. that have an even greater
> probability of describing and identifying repeated segments in a lengthy
> resource.
>
> ·         A further extension of this use case (or perhaps the slippery
> slope reason not to allow) might be its potential use with multiplicity
> constructs.
>
>
>
> I suspect that the 'data selector' discussion that Bob, Paolo and others
> have raised previously in other threads (most recently in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2014Feb/0011.html)
> is relevant here in terms of how the current OA model might be applied or if
> necessary extended to implement this use case. Though this suggestion was
> stimulated by the copy edit example (which has come up most recently in the
> context of the HathiTrust Research Center), there is perhaps in fact a lot
> of overlap with various data query use cases.
>
>
>
> A relevant question (I think) is whether (in the context of RDF and OA) we
> can unambiguously give identity as a single Resource (e.g., as an extension
> of the oa:SpecificResource class)  to what is essentially a not yet
> enumerated ad hoc aggregation of oa:SpecificResources?  Perhaps there's a
> bit of a Schrödinger's Cat issue lurking here.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Tim Cole
>
> University of Illinois at UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 4:52 PM
> To: public-openannotation
> Subject: Use Cases
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Saturday, 1 March 2014 20:11:12 UTC