annotations and RDF

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

annotations and RDF

Matteo Casu
Hi everybody,

[my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities]

does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more comfort wrt NiF.

[0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
[1] http://www.annotationframework.org/
[2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations and RDF

Paul Groth-3
Hi Matteo,

Something also to look at is the Open Annotation spec [1], which is being produced out of the combination of the Annotation Ontology and Open Annotation Model. It seems like there's a lot of community support around it.

Paul



On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Matteo Casu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi everybody,

[my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities]

does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more comfort wrt NiF.

[0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
[1] http://www.annotationframework.org/
[2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations and RDF

Robert Sanderson
In reply to this post by Matteo Casu
Hi Matteo,

The Annotation Ontology has merged with Open Annotation Collaboration
in the W3C community group:
  http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/

And Paolo is co-chair along with myself.

We're *just* about to release the next version of the Community Group
draft, so your interest comes at a great time.
The NIF folk are also part of the Community Group, and we of course
would encourage your participation as well!

Many thanks,

Rob Sanderson
(Open Annotation Community Group co-chair)


On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Matteo Casu <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> [my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities]
>
> does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more comfort wrt NiF.
>
> [0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
> [1] http://www.annotationframework.org/
> [2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations and RDF

Matteo Casu
Thank you Robert!

I've just seen what I think is the new draft (february 5th). I will go through it! In the meantime, I'm wondering what you think on the problem of keeping all the annotations of a text in RDF vs. keeping them in a separate store and bind them to entities in the RDF.

The use case I have in mind is: imagine a book, say The Lord of the Rings. Assume we want to annotate domain information in RDF (characters, actions, etc..) as well as linguistic (or "librarian")-oriented annotations: paragraphs, lines, pages (in order to make citations..), down to lemmas and so on..

We could follow the FRBR model and keep in an RDF graph the domain information AND some librarian information. But what about the annotations on text as -- say -- links between a character and the lines on which they appear?Should these be RDF statements? What about the the problem of text duplications in annotations which are not independent (e.g. lemmas and sentences)?
Have you (as a community) a definite idea on this issue or perhaps is something which is still under observation?




Il giorno 04/feb/2013, alle ore 21:37, Robert Sanderson <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Hi Matteo,
>
> The Annotation Ontology has merged with Open Annotation Collaboration
> in the W3C community group:
>  http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/
>
> And Paolo is co-chair along with myself.
>
> We're *just* about to release the next version of the Community Group
> draft, so your interest comes at a great time.
> The NIF folk are also part of the Community Group, and we of course
> would encourage your participation as well!
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Rob Sanderson
> (Open Annotation Community Group co-chair)
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Matteo Casu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> [my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities]
>>
>> does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more comfort wrt NiF.
>>
>> [0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
>> [1] http://www.annotationframework.org/
>> [2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about
>>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations and RDF

Martynas Jusevičius
Matteo,

if you want annotations interleaving with text, maybe you could use
RDFa? Here's one of the first "RDFa annotations" Google hits:
http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/R/R11/R11-2008.pdf

Martynas
graphity.org

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Matteo Casu <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thank you Robert!
>
> I've just seen what I think is the new draft (february 5th). I will go through it! In the meantime, I'm wondering what you think on the problem of keeping all the annotations of a text in RDF vs. keeping them in a separate store and bind them to entities in the RDF.
>
> The use case I have in mind is: imagine a book, say The Lord of the Rings. Assume we want to annotate domain information in RDF (characters, actions, etc..) as well as linguistic (or "librarian")-oriented annotations: paragraphs, lines, pages (in order to make citations..), down to lemmas and so on..
>
> We could follow the FRBR model and keep in an RDF graph the domain information AND some librarian information. But what about the annotations on text as -- say -- links between a character and the lines on which they appear?Should these be RDF statements? What about the the problem of text duplications in annotations which are not independent (e.g. lemmas and sentences)?
> Have you (as a community) a definite idea on this issue or perhaps is something which is still under observation?
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno 04/feb/2013, alle ore 21:37, Robert Sanderson <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi Matteo,
>>
>> The Annotation Ontology has merged with Open Annotation Collaboration
>> in the W3C community group:
>>  http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/
>>
>> And Paolo is co-chair along with myself.
>>
>> We're *just* about to release the next version of the Community Group
>> draft, so your interest comes at a great time.
>> The NIF folk are also part of the Community Group, and we of course
>> would encourage your participation as well!
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Rob Sanderson
>> (Open Annotation Community Group co-chair)
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Matteo Casu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi everybody,
>>>
>>> [my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities]
>>>
>>> does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more comfort wrt NiF.
>>>
>>> [0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
>>> [1] http://www.annotationframework.org/
>>> [2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about
>>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations and RDF

Paolo Ciccarese
In reply to this post by Matteo Casu
Hi Matteo,
in the Domeo Annotation Tool http://annotationframework.org we do exactly that. We create annotation on text fragment(s), images, tables and we store the annotation, together with the info for detecting the text fragments in a RDF in a separate store. In fact, most of hte times we do not control the pages we are looking at. We also use CiTO and FaBIO for storing the bibliographic data and those are based on FRBR.

Could you give me a concrete example of the duplication problem you are mentioning at the end?

Best,
Paolo

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Matteo Casu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thank you Robert!

I've just seen what I think is the new draft (february 5th). I will go through it! In the meantime, I'm wondering what you think on the problem of keeping all the annotations of a text in RDF vs. keeping them in a separate store and bind them to entities in the RDF.

The use case I have in mind is: imagine a book, say The Lord of the Rings. Assume we want to annotate domain information in RDF (characters, actions, etc..) as well as linguistic (or "librarian")-oriented annotations: paragraphs, lines, pages (in order to make citations..), down to lemmas and so on..

We could follow the FRBR model and keep in an RDF graph the domain information AND some librarian information. But what about the annotations on text as -- say -- links between a character and the lines on which they appear?Should these be RDF statements? What about the the problem of text duplications in annotations which are not independent (e.g. lemmas and sentences)?
Have you (as a community) a definite idea on this issue or perhaps is something which is still under observation?




Il giorno 04/feb/2013, alle ore 21:37, Robert Sanderson <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Hi Matteo,
>
> The Annotation Ontology has merged with Open Annotation Collaboration
> in the W3C community group:
>  http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/
>
> And Paolo is co-chair along with myself.
>
> We're *just* about to release the next version of the Community Group
> draft, so your interest comes at a great time.
> The NIF folk are also part of the Community Group, and we of course
> would encourage your participation as well!
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Rob Sanderson
> (Open Annotation Community Group co-chair)
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Matteo Casu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> [my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities]
>>
>> does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more comfort wrt NiF.
>>
>> [0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
>> [1] http://www.annotationframework.org/
>> [2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about
>>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations and RDF

Matteo Casu
Hi Paolo,

my concerning was about the "info for detecting the text fragment": do you use a begin/end approach on the document (as in UIMA) without storing the body of the text? If it is so, then everything is clear to me.
Forgive me, my point of view is still unripe on the subject, so probably I'm just getting caught into a false problem.. :-)




Il giorno 07/feb/2013, alle ore 14:54, Paolo Ciccarese <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

Hi Matteo,
in the Domeo Annotation Tool http://annotationframework.org we do exactly that. We create annotation on text fragment(s), images, tables and we store the annotation, together with the info for detecting the text fragments in a RDF in a separate store. In fact, most of hte times we do not control the pages we are looking at. We also use CiTO and FaBIO for storing the bibliographic data and those are based on FRBR.

Could you give me a concrete example of the duplication problem you are mentioning at the end?

Best,
Paolo

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Matteo Casu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thank you Robert!

I've just seen what I think is the new draft (february 5th). I will go through it! In the meantime, I'm wondering what you think on the problem of keeping all the annotations of a text in RDF vs. keeping them in a separate store and bind them to entities in the RDF.

The use case I have in mind is: imagine a book, say The Lord of the Rings. Assume we want to annotate domain information in RDF (characters, actions, etc..) as well as linguistic (or "librarian")-oriented annotations: paragraphs, lines, pages (in order to make citations..), down to lemmas and so on..

We could follow the FRBR model and keep in an RDF graph the domain information AND some librarian information. But what about the annotations on text as -- say -- links between a character and the lines on which they appear?Should these be RDF statements? What about the the problem of text duplications in annotations which are not independent (e.g. lemmas and sentences)?
Have you (as a community) a definite idea on this issue or perhaps is something which is still under observation?




Il giorno 04/feb/2013, alle ore 21:37, Robert Sanderson <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Hi Matteo,
>
> The Annotation Ontology has merged with Open Annotation Collaboration
> in the W3C community group:
>  http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/
>
> And Paolo is co-chair along with myself.
>
> We're *just* about to release the next version of the Community Group
> draft, so your interest comes at a great time.
> The NIF folk are also part of the Community Group, and we of course
> would encourage your participation as well!
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Rob Sanderson
> (Open Annotation Community Group co-chair)
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Matteo Casu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> [my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities]
>>
>> does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more comfort wrt NiF.
>>
>> [0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
>> [1] http://www.annotationframework.org/
>> [2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about
>>




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations and RDF

Paolo Ciccarese
Hi Matteo,
you can do both. You can use begin/end or prefix/suffix. It depends on your needs.
For instance, if I want to be able to transfer the Domeo annotation from HTML to PDF I need to use prefix/suffix.
If the content you are annotating does not have problems of normalization you can use begin/end.

Paolo

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Matteo Casu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paolo,

my concerning was about the "info for detecting the text fragment": do you use a begin/end approach on the document (as in UIMA) without storing the body of the text? If it is so, then everything is clear to me.
Forgive me, my point of view is still unripe on the subject, so probably I'm just getting caught into a false problem.. :-)




Il giorno 07/feb/2013, alle ore 14:54, Paolo Ciccarese <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

Hi Matteo,
in the Domeo Annotation Tool http://annotationframework.org we do exactly that. We create annotation on text fragment(s), images, tables and we store the annotation, together with the info for detecting the text fragments in a RDF in a separate store. In fact, most of hte times we do not control the pages we are looking at. We also use CiTO and FaBIO for storing the bibliographic data and those are based on FRBR.

Could you give me a concrete example of the duplication problem you are mentioning at the end?

Best,
Paolo

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Matteo Casu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thank you Robert!

I've just seen what I think is the new draft (february 5th). I will go through it! In the meantime, I'm wondering what you think on the problem of keeping all the annotations of a text in RDF vs. keeping them in a separate store and bind them to entities in the RDF.

The use case I have in mind is: imagine a book, say The Lord of the Rings. Assume we want to annotate domain information in RDF (characters, actions, etc..) as well as linguistic (or "librarian")-oriented annotations: paragraphs, lines, pages (in order to make citations..), down to lemmas and so on..

We could follow the FRBR model and keep in an RDF graph the domain information AND some librarian information. But what about the annotations on text as -- say -- links between a character and the lines on which they appear?Should these be RDF statements? What about the the problem of text duplications in annotations which are not independent (e.g. lemmas and sentences)?
Have you (as a community) a definite idea on this issue or perhaps is something which is still under observation?




Il giorno 04/feb/2013, alle ore 21:37, Robert Sanderson <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Hi Matteo,
>
> The Annotation Ontology has merged with Open Annotation Collaboration
> in the W3C community group:
>  http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/
>
> And Paolo is co-chair along with myself.
>
> We're *just* about to release the next version of the Community Group
> draft, so your interest comes at a great time.
> The NIF folk are also part of the Community Group, and we of course
> would encourage your participation as well!
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Rob Sanderson
> (Open Annotation Community Group co-chair)
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Matteo Casu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> [my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities]
>>
>> does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more comfort wrt NiF.
>>
>> [0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
>> [1] http://www.annotationframework.org/
>> [2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about
>>







--
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
http://www.paolociccarese.info/
Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
Member of the MGH Biomedical Informatics Core
+1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s), may contain information that is considered
to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to any other party without the permission of the sender.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations and RDF

Dr David Shotton
In reply to this post by Paolo Ciccarese

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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations and RDF

Robert Sanderson
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
<[hidden email]> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations and RDF

Paolo Ciccarese
In reply to this post by Dr David Shotton
Dear David,
in general we have not been focusing enough on these aspects yet.
However, that is one of the top items in the priority list and it would be great if you could participate to the discussion.

As Rob pointed out, with very few tweaks your example could work in compliance with OA as well.

Best,
Paolo

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Dr David Shotton <[hidden email]> 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: <a href="tel:%2B44-%280%291865-271193" value="+441865271193" target="_blank">+44-(0)1865-271193    Skype: davidshotton



--
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
http://www.paolociccarese.info/
Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
Member of the MGH Biomedical Informatics Core
+1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s), may contain information that is considered
to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to any other party without the permission of the sender.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations and RDF

Dr David Shotton
Thanks to you both.  Tweak away to get this right!  David

On 12/02/2013 17:44, Paolo Ciccarese wrote:
Dear David,
in general we have not been focusing enough on these aspects yet.
However, that is one of the top items in the priority list and it would be great if you could participate to the discussion.

As Rob pointed out, with very few tweaks your example could work in compliance with OA as well.

Best,
Paolo

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Dr David Shotton <[hidden email]> 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: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B44-%280%291865-271193" value="+441865271193" target="_blank">+44-(0)1865-271193    Skype: davidshotton



--
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
http://www.paolociccarese.info/
Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
Member of the MGH Biomedical Informatics Core
+1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s), may contain information that is considered
to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to any other party without the permission of the sender.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.


-- 

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