Re: modeling location-of or birth-place-of

On 01/01/2018 22:05, karlg wrote:
>
> Thanks for this, Rob, it’s a big help. I think Option 1 is our answer
> – my constraint is that for this application (WHGazetteer) we need
> compatibility with Pelagios/Peripleo, which is OA, potentially
> indexing each other’s contributed annotations (TBD). I think we will
> favor JSON-LD, and interpret a few “standard” properties, maybe
> per-target_type. If contributions don’t include them, our interfaces
> will have to manage that somehow. E.g. a person could have an asserted
> connection to a place, but for an unknown interval. I like to avoid
> what I call the “dumb edge problem” but need to accommodate the
> realities of historical data.
>
Karl,

Yes, I would agree with using the body of the annotation to hold
structured information about the birth/act of creation/etc. My own
preference would be to record it as a self-contained event/activity,
with the person appearing within the annotation body in the appropriate
context, as well as being the target of the annotation.  That way, the
annotation body is self-contained and useful as it stands, without your
needing to refer across to the target to make sense of it.

Best wishes,

Richard

>  
>
> Karl
>
>  
>
> On 1/1/18, 2:05 PM, "Robert Sanderson" <azaroth42@gmail.com
> <mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Hi Karl,
>
>  
>
> There are three possible patterns for this, but first are Web
> Annotations really the right tool to be using for this?  It sounds
> like you want something with a stronger data model, rather than a
> framework for associating resources together.
>
>  
>
> Option 1:  Machine Readable Body
>
>  
>
> My preferred solution for these sorts of things is simply to have all
> of the assertions in the body of the annotation.  In the same way that
> you might write the place and time in English as a body, it's quite
> possible to write in XML, JSON, RDF or whatever other syntax is
> convenient.  This keeps the annotation assertions and the content
> assertions separate, allowing different agents to be responsible (and
> hence potentially credited) for them.  The downside is that you need
> to separately parse the body to understand the content [which is by
> design, but might be unpalatable].
>
>  
>
> Option 2: Create a new Motivation
>
>  
>
> Another option is to create a new motivation that mirrors the
> predicate/relationship you want to assert, such as
> yyy:asserting-place-of-birth or zzz:asserting-place-of-creation.
>
> Then the place is the body and the thing receiving the place is the
> target. The advantage is that everything is parsed by your annotation
> system, the disadvantage is that now you've mirrored your entire
> ontology into a set of motivation extensions -- probably as narrower
> terms than oa:tagging.
>
>  
>
> Option 3: Create a new Property
>
>  
>
> Finally, you could simply add new properties to the model to describe
> the relationships you want to assert. The advantage is that you're not
> duplicating your ontology, the downside is that no other system will
> process your extensions.  The reason we didn't put this into the model
> is that RDF already has a reification pattern, which is generally
> unloved and we didn't want to bring it in to scope of the work, as we
> would start to compete with other standards like LDP.
>
>  
>
> Hope that helps,
>
>  
>
> Rob
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 3:42 PM, karlg <karl.geog@gmail.com
> <mailto:karl.geog@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>      
>
>     I’m trying to model the annotation of a resource for any sort of
>     thing with a resource for a place, and it needs to allow for a
>     valid time. Can’t see how so far, any ideas would be helpful.
>
>      
>
>     For example, annotating a record for a person (target) with a
>     record for a place (body). The person wasn’t always at the place,
>     so the relation between them needs to include a valid date range
>     somehow. Maybe restricting the relation to type, e.g.
>     “birthplace,” or “created-at” in the case of a creative work.
>
>      
>
>     The goal is descriptions of places that include all sorts of items
>     that have been annotated as being located there, generally, but
>     critically also for some date range.
>
>      
>
>     thanks
>
>      
>
>     -- 
>
>     Karl Grossner, PhD
>
>     Technical Director, World-Historical Gazetteer
>
>     University of Pittsburgh World History Center
>
>     e: karl.geog@gmail.com <mailto:karl.geog@gmail.com>
>
>     t: @kgeographer
>
>      
>
>
>
>  
>
> -- 
>
> Rob Sanderson
>
> Semantic Architect
>
> The Getty Trust
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90049
>

-- 
*Richard Light*