- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:43:18 -0500
- To: Dr David Shotton <david.shotton@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, Herbert van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>, Matteo Casu <mattecasu@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, Silvio Peroni <essepuntato@cs.unibo.it>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi David,
(And cc'ing the Open Annotation list as well)
Yes that looks fine. If the annotation is about the citation, rather
than the paper, then it should definitely target a resource that
identifies the citation. I don't want to comment on the use of Named
Graphs (see [2]) for the citation, that's your field :), but the
annotation modeling looks okay other than the use of dc:description
(see [1]).
The minimally different Open Annotation version would be:
_:anno1 a oa:Annotation ;
oa:hasBody _:commentOnCitation ;
oa:hasTarget <uri-for-citation-resource> ;
oa:motivatedBy oa:commenting .
_:commentOnCitation a cnt:ContentAsText ;
cnt:chars "I'm citing that paper because it initiated this whole
field of research" .
A multi-class solution to reuse your fabio:Comment class might be:
_:commentOnCitation a cnt:ContentAsText, fabio:Comment ;
cnt:chars "..." ;
dc:description "..." .
The relevant parts of the spec are:
[1] http://openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#BodyEmbed
[2] http://openannotation.org/spec/core/publishing.html#Graphs
Hope that helps!
Rob
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Dr David Shotton
<david.shotton@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2013 14:54, Paolo Ciccarese wrote:
>
> We also use CiTO and FaBIO for storing the bibliographic data and those are
> based on FRBR.
>
> Dear Paolo, Robert and Herbert,
>
> I'm in Leiden at a conference with Bob Morris. We've just had a brief
> discussion about the potential use of AO to characterize citations, where
> the generic CiTO terms don't provide sufficient expressiveness. That has
> prompted me to look at the new Open Annotation Data Model: Open Annotation
> Core published last Friday.
>
> That document says "Typically an Annotation has a single Body, which is the
> comment or other descriptive resource, and a single Target that the Body is
> somehow "about". " Thus oa:hasBody defines the annotation itself, and
> oa:hasTarget defines the target of that annotation.
>
> If we now apply that to the situation of a bibliographic citation that we
> want to characterize with a new annotation, we must be careful to note that
> oa:hasTarget does NOT apply to the cited paper, but rather to the citation
> that exists between the citing paper and the cited paper.
>
> So we first need to define the annotation as applying to the citation, then
> to define the body of the annotation as something distinct from the citing
> paper, and finally to define the target of the annotation as the citation
> itself. What do people think about the following, that uses a Named Graph
> to define the citation? Comments welcome!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> David
>
> :citationAnnotation a oa:Annotation ;
>
> oa:hasBody :CommentOnCitation ;
>
> oa:hasTarget :citationNamedGraph ;
>
> oa:motivatedBy oa:commenting .
>
>
>
> :CommentOnCitation a fabio:Comment ;
>
> dcterms:description "I'm citing that paper because it initiated this
> whole field of research" .
>
>
>
> :citationNamedGraph {
>
> <Paper_A> cito:cites <Paper_B> .
>
> }
>
>
> --
>
> Dr David Shotton
> Research Data Management and Semantic Publishing Research Group
> Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
> South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.
> Phone: +44-(0)1865-271193 Skype: davidshotton
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 16:43:49 UTC