Re: Use Cases

Hi Sergey,

Thanks for the list!

I think they're almost all covered by the current document, as the body of
the annotation can be plain text, html, or structured data.  In your use
cases, they would probably be structured data I guess, and hence fall under
2.1.3 rather than 2.1.1


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Sergey Parinov <sparinov@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 2.1. A scientist wishes to annotate a scientific relationship that on
> his/her opinion (as a fact or hypothesis) exists between a pair of
> research artifacts. The artifact here is some part (fragment, segment,
> etc.) or a whole research publication.
>

Covered in 2.2.8.

2.2. A scientist wishes to annotate that some research artifacts were
> used by him to produce a new scientific knowledge published in some
> materials. And to specify within the annotation which motivations he
> had to use each artifact, how it was used, how it impacted on his/her
> research.
>

Covered in 2.1.3


> 2.3. A scientist wishes to annotate his tries and fails to use some
> research artifacts in his/her research which outputs were published in
> some materials.
>

Covered in 2.1.3


> 2.4. A scientist wishes to receive immediate notifications: (1) when
> other scientists annotated his/her research outputs (e.g. because they
> used it in they research), including data about a character of the
> using; (2) when other scientists changed materials which were
> annotated by the scientist (since there is a need to check and may be
> revise made annotations).
>

Agree that this is a value-added service on top of the annotations, once
created.  However I'm not sure that this is necessary for the /creation/ of
annotations.  There are lots of possible services like these, but they
don't need to be standardized, just dreamed up and implemented :)



> 2.5. A scientist wishes to have an ability to react on cases of
> annotating (using) his/her research outputs, e.g. to help/assist with
> proper using of the outputs, or to protest against wrong using, etc.
>

Replying to annotation... something we've long, long discussed, and that I
completely missed out.
I'll add it in the next version of the document!



> 2.6. A scientist wishes to have a statistical "portrait" (on some
> date) of how a research artifact, a publication, a set of
> artifacts/publications of one author/group/organization was annotated
> (used) by the scientific community. Or how a
> scientist/group/organization annotated (used) research outputs of
> other scientists in their work.
>

Another interesting service on top of the annotation dataset.



> 3. Requirements/suggestions
> 3.1.1. Identity of a pair of related publications/artifacts: Source
> Resource and Target Resource.
>

Actually, I think it would be two targets, and the body would describe the
relationship.

3.1.2. Identity of an annotation as a pair of outgoing and ingoing
> linkages between the Source Resource and Target Resource.
>

Covered with motivations (linking).


> 3.2.1. Central repository of annotations and API to get already
> existed annotations for the specified resource (both outgoing and
> ingoing types).
>

Covered with service for sharing annotations.


> 3.2.2. Managing of taxonomy of the scientific relationship classes and
> related semantic vocabularies. Central repository of semantic
> vocabularies submitted to be used for annotating of research
> artifacts.
>

Out of scope of /annotation/ but very important.



> 3.2.3. Notifications of authors of: (1) annotations, and (2) resources
> linked by the annotations.
>

Next tier of service, that doesn't require standardization, just
implementation :)


> 3.2.4. Collecting statistics about annotations, its semantic and
> linked resources. Processing of statistics about ingoing/outgoing
> annotations and its scientific relationship taxonomy to build/update
> the "usage portraits" for each research artifact, publication, author
> and organization.
>

Ditto.

Rob