Re: AW: Expressing relations between targets?

Hi Bridget,

On 10.12.19 14:54, Bridget Almas wrote:
> Hi Rainer,
> 
> 
> Yes, I think that's right.
> 
> 
> I too wonder what people think about the body structure :-)

I thought that it's not as bad as I had feared when I heard about a
graph in the body :-)

My fear was that there would be Turtle or RDF-XML in the body and I
would have to add yet another parser or two in my client. With JSON-LD I
only need an additional LD-Processor or to specialize my code for the
specific pattern.

I would still prefer to have the second target not be in the body to be
more explicit but multiple targets are still a bit underspecified in
WebAnno as Benjamin mentioned. Maybe we can extend this area of the spec
now that there are some real usecases.

Best
 Robert

> On 12/10/19 2:28 AM, Simon Rainer wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bridget,
>>
>>
>> interesting. It's certainly a bit of a different approach to my
>> original thoughts, but could be pretty applicable... (And actually it
>> might be closer to what we are doing now internally right now,
>> although in a proprietary way). To summarize how I understand this
>> (and how I'd apply it to my case) - please correct me if I'm wrong:
>> you are essentially creating an annotation that's attached to "one end
>> of the arrow", as it were. And then there's a single body in
>> there, that essentially models the "arrow" (link relation + target).
>>
>>
>> In terms of mechanics, I think that would totally work for us, too. I
>> wonder what people's views are on the body structure, though. I.e. the
>> body being a graph that works like a target :-) In any case: IMO a
>> good pattern.
>>
>>
>> Cheers & thanks,
>>
>> Rainer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Von:* Bridget Almas <balmas@gmail.com>
>> *Gesendet:* Montag, 9. Dezember 2019 22:45
>> *An:* Benjamin Young; public-openannotation@w3.org
>> *Betreff:* Re: Expressing relations between targets?
>>
>> Hi Benjamin,
>>
>>
>> Sure. The use case is not exactly the same as Rainer's but I think it
>> has some similarities.  Note that this was done with the OA data model
>> before it became the W3C model, so it's a little out of date that way
>> as well.
>>
>>
>> But anyway, the following is an annotation which reflects a user
>> annotating a bibliographic entry in a bibliographic dictionary. The
>> target of the annotation is the selection of the name Rhea in the
>> entry for the person entity named Cronus. The body of the annotation
>> is a graph which describes the bond between the resource identified by
>> the text "Rhea" with a Person entity with the uri for the Cronus
>> person entity (http://data.perseus.org/people/smith:cronus-1#this").
>>
>>
>> To be more complete, under this model there would ideally be
>>
>> (1) an annotation which associated the text entry itself with the
>> person entity identifier for Cronus
>>
>> (2) an annotation which annotates the "Rhea" text with a uri for the
>> person entity for Rhea,
>>
>> (3) an annotation whose target is text selector for "He was married to
>> Rhea" and whose body is the graph of the relationship between the Rhea
>> entity and the Cronus entity
>>
>>
>> But we never got that far :-)
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bridget
>>
>>
>>
>> {
>>   "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa-context-20130208.json",
>>   "@id": "urn:cite:perseus:pdljann.18IJy7d0QG2ztppbX3CCeg.1.1",
>>   "annotatedBy": {
>>     "@type": "foaf:Group",
>>     "@id": "http://data.perseus.org/sosol/users/Andrew",
>>     "foaf:member": [
>>       {
>>         "foaf:name": "Jane Doe",
>>         "@type": "foaf:person"
>>       }
>>     ]
>>   },
>>   "@type": "oa:Annotation",
>>   "dcterms:source":
>> "https://hypothes.is/api/annotations/18IJy7d0QG2ztppbX3CCeg",
>>   "dcterms:title": "http://data.perseus.org/people/smith:cronus-1#this
>> identifies Rhea as object of snap:IntimateRelationship relationship in
>> urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:C.cronus_1",
>>   "annotatedAt": "2015-10-07T15:30:27.211185+00:00",
>>   "motivatedBy": "oa:identifying",
>>   "serializedBy": {
>>     "@id": "https://hypothes.is",
>>     "@type": "prov:SoftwareAgent"
>>   },
>>   "hasTarget": {
>>     "@id":
>> "urn:cite:perseus:pdljann.18IJy7d0QG2ztppbX3CCeg.1.1#target-1",
>>     "@type": "oa:SpecificResource",
>>     "hasSelector": {
>>       "@id":
>> "urn:cite:perseus:pdljann.18IJy7d0QG2ztppbX3CCeg.1.1#target-1-sel-1",
>>       "@type": "oa:TextQuoteSelector",
>>       "exact": "Rhea",
>>       "prefix": "g the Titans. He was married to ",
>>       "suffix": ",\n                  by whom he b"
>>     },
>>     "hasSource": {
>>       "@id": "urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:C.cronus_1"
>>     }
>>   },
>>   "hasBody": {
>>     "@context": {
>>       "snap": "http://onto.snapdrgn.net/snap#",
>>     },
>>     "@graph": [
>>       {
>>         "@id":
>> "urn:cite:perseus:pdljann.18IJy7d0QG2ztppbX3CCeg.1.1#rel-target",
>>         "@type": "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#SpecificResource",
>> "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#hasSelector": {
>>           "@id":
>> "urn:cite:perseus:pdljann.18IJy7d0QG2ztppbX3CCeg.1.1#target-1-sel-1",
>>           "@type": "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#TextQuoteSelector",
>> "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#exact": "Rhea",
>> "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#prefix": "g the Titans. He was married to ",
>> "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#suffix": ",\n                  by whom he b"
>>         },
>>         "hasSource": {
>>           "@id":
>> "urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:C.cronus_1"
>>         }
>>       },
>>       {
>>         "@id": "http://data.perseus.org/people/smith:cronus-1#this",
>> "snap:has-bond": [
>> "urn:cite:perseus:pdljann.18IJy7d0QG2ztppbX3CCeg.1.1#bond-1-1"
>>         ]
>>       },
>>       {
>>         "@id":
>> "urn:cite:perseus:pdljann.18IJy7d0QG2ztppbX3CCeg.1.1#bond-1-1",
>>         "@type": "snap:IntimateRelationship",
>> "snap:bond-with": {
>>           "@id":
>> "urn:cite:perseus:pdljann.18IJy7d0QG2ztppbX3CCeg.1.1#rel-target"
>>         }
>>       }
>>     ]
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> On 12/9/19 3:54 PM, Benjamin Young wrote:
>>> Hey Bridget,
>>>
>>> I'd love to see an example of how y'all structured that
>>> annotation...legal or not. ;)
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Benjamin
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> http://bigbluehat.com/
>>>
>>> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* Bridget Almas <balmas@gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, December 9, 2019 1:09 PM
>>> *To:* public-openannotation@w3.org <public-openannotation@w3.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: Expressing relations between targets?
>>>
>>> To add to this -- in Perseids (first with Hypothes.is and then with
>>> Plokamos) we did something similar, setting the annotation body to a
>>> graph that encoded the relationship using the SNAP ontology.  It
>>> wasn't perfect, particularly because we embedded the graph directly
>>> in the annotation body rather than referencing it via URI, which
>>> wasn't really legal, but it did allow us to express the nature of the
>>> relationship.  Happy to provide more details if you're interested.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bridget
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/9/19 12:14 PM, Benjamin Young wrote:
>>>> Thanks for writing, Simon!
>>>>
>>>> At this point, I'd suggest being careful not to reinvent RDF inside
>>>> Web Annotation. Something like "A is the father of B" or similar is
>>>> already better expressed via much simpler RDF (assuming you have
>>>> identifiers for the things. Mixing that into the annotation model
>>>> starts to create all kinds of painful indirection. 😕
>>>>
>>>> That said, I'm noting a lack of "directionality" when targeting
>>>> resources in Web Annotation. I'm not (yet) certain it's Web
>>>> Annotation's job to record that, just noting that it currently isn't
>>>> possible. Appendix D has the things that get close:
>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#sets-of-bodies-and-targets
>>>> But even so, I don't think there's a way to turn "Orestes killed
>>>> Aegisthus" into an annotation per se.
>>>>
>>>> It might be best to narrow in on the "textual editing part" and
>>>> explore potential needs in that context. Otherwise, RDF proper would
>>>> likely do a much cleaner job of expressing the things you note below.
>>>>
>>>> Happy to discuss further!
>>>> Benjamin
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> http://bigbluehat.com/
>>>>
>>>> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Simon Rainer <Rainer.Simon@ait.ac.at>
>>>> <mailto:Rainer.Simon@ait.ac.at>
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, December 9, 2019 8:28 AM
>>>> *To:* James Smith <jgsmith@gmail.com> <mailto:jgsmith@gmail.com>
>>>> *Cc:* public-openannotation@w3.org
>>>> <mailto:public-openannotation@w3.org> <public-openannotation@w3.org>
>>>> <mailto:public-openannotation@w3.org>
>>>> *Subject:* AW: Expressing relations between targets?
>>>>
>>>> Hi James,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree - we'd ideally want to identify the people via URIs. And
>>>> then the assertion "is father of" would be a statement between those
>>>> two entities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, within the annotation environment, the scenario is that
>>>> this would be like a note, made a human editor, on the text. So I'm
>>>> inclined to say that, we are indeed talking about a statement about
>>>> two strings of text - at least at this point in the workflow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess the example is also not ideal here. The annotations might
>>>> just as well be highlighting two different text paragraphs, and the
>>>> annotator would drag an arrow between them saying "the author is
>>>> repeating him/herself here", or whatever. I.e. irrespective of what
>>>> ever "real world meaning" might be behind the arrow eventually, I'm
>>>> primarily interested in using WebAnno/Open Annotation to model the
>>>> textual editing part.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Rainer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *Von:* James Smith <jgsmith@gmail.com> <mailto:jgsmith@gmail.com>
>>>> *Gesendet:* Montag, 9. Dezember 2019 14:18
>>>> *An:* Simon Rainer
>>>> *Cc:* public-openannotation@w3.org
>>>> <mailto:public-openannotation@w3.org>
>>>> *Betreff:* Re: Expressing relations between targets?
>>>> How do we know who the text "Aegisthus" refers to? It's a name, so
>>>> it's identifying something, but who/what is the identity we
>>>> associate with the string "Aegisthus"?
>>>>
>>>> While we might all agree on whom we link the text to in our minds,
>>>> it might be helpful to add some context for the computer. I'd add
>>>> another property on the body that points to a dbpedia entry or other
>>>> unique URI that is useful in asserting the identity of the person
>>>> referenced in the text as "Aegisthus". Let's say it's
>>>> <dbpedia:Aegisthus>. The same could be done for "Orestes" with a
>>>> link (for the purposes of discussion) of <dbpedia:Orestes>.
>>>>
>>>> Once this is done, then it's a matter of asserting the
>>>> <dbpedia:Aegisthus> is related to <dbpedia:Orestes>. It's not about
>>>> the string "Aegisthus" having a familial relationship with the
>>>> string "Orestes", or that one annotation has a familial relationship
>>>> with another annotation, but about the person <dbpedia:Aegisthus>
>>>> having such a relationship with the person <dbpedia:Orestes>. They
>>>> just happen to be referenced as "Aegisthus" and "Orestes" in this
>>>> particular text.
>>>>
>>>> If we did make the relationship about the strings in the text, then
>>>> that relationship wouldn't be true for any other instances of the
>>>> strings "Aegisthus" and "Orestes" in this or any other text. It
>>>> would be about the two instances already highlighted.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jim
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 8:03 AM Simon Rainer <Rainer.Simon@ait.ac.at
>>>> <mailto:Rainer.Simon@ait.ac.at>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Dear list,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     I have a question regarding the possible use of the WebAnno
>>>>     model for expressing a relationship between two targets.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     My scenario is the following:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     *) I have two text annotations that identify people. Each
>>>>     annotation has a single target (the person name in
>>>>     a TextQuoteSelector, and character offset in a
>>>>     TextPositionSelector); and a single body (with purpose
>>>>     "identifying").
>>>>
>>>>     *) I now want to create a third annotation that expresses a
>>>>     relation between person A and B. (E.g. "A is the father of B" or
>>>>     similar.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     My approach would be to model this third annotation like the
>>>>     sample below. I.e. with:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     *) two targets, each holding the ID of one person annotation
>>>>
>>>>     *) a body with the relation tag ("is the father of")
>>>>
>>>>     *) a motivation of "linking"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     According to the definition for "linking", that's not correct
>>>>     though. "Linking" is supposed to express a link between body and
>>>>     all targets, rather than a link between the targets. In
>>>>     addition, there's also no way to express directionality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Does anyone have recommendations on how to tackle such a use
>>>>     case with WebAnno? I realize that (some of) this may actually be
>>>>     out of scope for the spec as such. In this case, I'd appreciate
>>>>     any thoughts, opinions, and possible recommendations on a custom
>>>>     extension pattern, if needed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Cheers & thanks in advance,
>>>>
>>>>     Rainer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     {
>>>>       "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld",
>>>>     "id": "#9ba844a7-e8ec-4127-ad12-1f7f16a240c6",
>>>>     "type": "Annotation",
>>>>     "motivation": "linking",
>>>>     "body": [{
>>>>       "type": "TextualBody",
>>>>       "value": "isRelatedTo"
>>>>       }],
>>>>       "target": [{
>>>>         "id": "#ce0ed291-766b-4763-8e91-90ce1d04e706"
>>>>       }, {
>>>>         "id": "#447d4bea-08dc-4bd0-ae51-31f5ed7a95a0"
>>>>       }]
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> 


-- 
Dr. Robert Casties -- Information Technology Group
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science
Boltzmannstr. 22, D-14195 Berlin
Tel: +49/30/22667-342 Fax: -299