Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Open Annotation Collaboration (OAC) at http://www.OpenAnnotation.org

Name Size Creator Creation Date Comment  
File susana-oac.ttl 2 kB Vladimir Alexiev Mar 05, 2012 17:27    
File susana-rso.ttl 2 kB Vladimir Alexiev Mar 05, 2012 17:27    

Intro

OAC is a Mellon-funded project to develop the OAC ontology. Principal participants:

  • Los Alamos National Laboratory
  • The University of Queensland
  • University of Maryland
  • University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
  • Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities

Phases:

Resources

Other resources

Benefits

  • Based on general Guiding Principles that hopefully will ensure longevity, sustainability and relevance to various domains
  • Treats Annotation, Target (item being annotated) and Body (item comprising the annotation) as separate and distinct
  • Provides for annotations of text, structured data, images, other multimedia
  • Provides examples of application in widely varying domains, with great illustrations

Disadvantages

  • the model is still beta, not finalized
  • recommends storing RDF data as an encoded string (cnt:chars) (sec 3.5, 3.7.3.1, 3.9.1), which IMHO is a very bad idea
  • does not yet define any way to publish, share, search, discover, subscribe to annotations:
    • to transfer: "Dereferencing the HTTP URI of the Annotation document results in an RDF serialization of an instance of this data model. Any of the RDF serialization formats are permissible, however RDF/XML is recommended"
    • "companion publish/discovery document" (not yet available)"
    • "In order to increase the likelihood of adoption, and in alignment with the goal of sharing annotations, no client-server protocol for publishing/updating/deleting annotations will be specified. Rather, the specifications will take a perspective whereby clients publish annotations to the Web and make them discoverable using common Web approaches"

Implementations

Annotation implementations conforming to OAC:

In development

Partner projects

Watch Projects and pages for future announcements

OAC Overview

OAC resume/cheat sheet

Baseline Model

An oac:Annotation consists of oac:Body (sometimes called "content") and oac:Target (the resource being annotated).

oac:hasBody from Annotation to Body
oac:hasTarget from Annotation to Target
  • There can be Multiple Targets, eg this Body relates to 3 Targets:
    Fitzgerald makes key mistakes in accounting for Daisy's chronology:
    • We are told at one point in Chapter 4, that...
    • We also know from elsewhere in Chapter 4, that ...
    • And we are told at one point in Chapter 1, that ...

Additional Properties

dc:title name of the Annotation
dcterms:creator creator of the Annotation
dcterms:created time and date at which the Annotation was created
oac:annotates from Body to Target

Annotation Predicates

Unofficial proposal for various annotation "dispositions" that are sub-properties of oac:annotates, eg:

  • advises: advisesPreferredEdition advisesSupportingReference advisesFurtherResearch
  • categorizes: categorizesBySubject categorizesByTemporal categorizesBySpatial
  • changes: changesAddsErrata changesSuggestsEdit
  • comments:
  • compares: orders contrasts correlates
  • explains
  • questions: questionsFact questionsOpinion questionsConsistency
  • replies: repliesAgreement repliesDisagreement repliesMixedOpinion
  • seeAlso: seeAlsoOtherSources seeAlsoConfirming

Annotation Type

Defines specialized sub-classes of oac:Annotation. We also use one: rso:DataAnnotation.
Currently there is only one (the additional Annotation Type List is empty)

oac:Reply an Annotation (A2) that it is a reply to another Annotation (A1). A2.hasTarget=A1

  • Problem: A2 has no direct pointer to the ultimate target (eg image), nor to the root of the discussion thread.
    (A W3C proposal for thread structure includes such pointer: http://www.w3.org/2001/03/thread#root.)
    So if you need to find all annotations in a thread, or having the same ultimate target, you need to walk a chain.

Serialization, Inline

"Dereferencing the HTTP URI of the Annotation document results in an RDF serialization of OAC".

  • This follows Linked Data principles
  • It's not entirely clear how much of the annotation graph should be returned. The included example returns only oac:Body, using RDFa->RDF conversion

Inline Body, Data Annotations, Constraints
Uses the W3C spec Representing Content in RDF to put encoded data in a node (Body, Constraint):

cnt:ContentAsText signifies that content is available as encoded data
cnt:chars representation of the resource, as plain text, in a certain encoding
cnt:characterEncoding character encoding of cnt:chars (or cnt:bytes?), such as "utf-8" or "ascii"
dc:format data format of the body, eg "N3" for RDF/N3;Turtle "SVG" for a SvgConstraint

I have argued that Representing RDF data as cnt:chars is a bad idea since it defeats semantic repository indexes and query optimization

Fragments and Constraints

Fragments and Constraints allow one to select a resource part as annotation Body and/or Target, not just the entire resource. This important topic accounts for about half the spec

Fragments

Fragments are denoted as "URI#Fragment" and include:

  • text: char= start,end; line= start,end
  • X/HTML: id or a.name; xpointer=
  • PDF: page= n; viewrect= top,left,width,height
  • image: xywh= top,left,width,height
  • video: t= kind:start,end
    • where: kind: Normal Play Time (npt), SMPTE (smpte), or Wall Clock (clock)
    • start,end: are in seconds
dcterms:isPartOf links the fragment Target to the full resource. Typically:
<URI#fragment> dcterms:isPartOf <URI>

Constraints

Constraints represent the resource part in a structured way. Some reuse AO Selectors ( aos: ). They are represented as subclasses of oac:Constraint and include:

  • text: oac:OffsetRangeConstraint: aos:offset (starting char), aos:range (number of chars)
  • text: oac:PrefixPostfixConstraint: aos:prefix (before selection), aos:exact (the selection), aos:postfix (after selection)
  • image: oac:SvgConstraint: part is delimited by an SVG shape: path, rect, circle, ellipse, line, polyline, polygon, g(roup)
    • g(roup) is used only to create a part with a hole (eg donut)
    • point (marker) cannot be used?
    • the SVG content is obtained thus:
      if the oac:SvgConstraint node is also cnt:ContentAsText, then from property cnt:chars
      else the node's URI is dereferenced and the server should return the content
  • time: oac:WebTimeConstraint: oac:when: to annotate the version of a resource as of the given time.
    (When you cite a URL in a scientific paper, good style asks you to say "Accessed on ...", this is the same idea)
  • context: oac:ContextConstraint: oac:inContextOf: to annotate a resource only in the context of a bigger resource.
    Eg "this image is too bright in the context of that web page"
  • rdf: constraint-specific predicates that specify the resource part in a structured way

RDF Resource Constraint

I made a proposal for OAC constraint extension to annotate an RDF property-instance:
RDF Resource Constraints are used to point to RDF statements. They match the framework of Data Model Guide section 3.7.3.2 and are attached to the Constraint (node C-1 on Figure 7.3.2).

They reuse the RDF Reification vocabulary.

rdf:Statement Signifies that the constraint is about an RDF statement. The statement conceptually "belongs" to the target T-1 (the object of oac:constrains).
rdf:subject Subject of the statement being annotated, required. May coincide with the target T-1.
rdf:predicate Property being annotated, required.
rdf:object Object of the statement being annotated, optional. If missing, the annotation is about all statements with the given subject and predicate, and none of them in particular

However, I have now come up with a cleaner representation (see below)

RS Data Annotation in OAC

The previous version of RS Annotation Design used a vocabulary based on CRM and extended with RSO.
We have now decided to use OAC, and the correspondence is shown below.
The key to understanding is this: Annotation Points map exactly to oac:Target (target of a link!).
There are two cases: entire MO or a Statement

Case 1: Annotate Entire MO

The target is rso:E22_Museum_Object (the entire MO)

RSO+CRM OAC+Reification meaning; comments
crm: E13_Attribute_Assignment rso:DataAnnotation annotation
rso:root oac:hasTarget link to target (being the MO)
  oac:Target,rso:E22_Museum_Object annotation target (being the MO)
  oac:hasBody link to body
  oac:Body annotation body

Case 2: Annotate statement

The target is rdf:Statement with optional rdf:object. The target uses dcterms:isPartOf (as in Fragments) to point to the entire MO

RSO+CRM OAC+Reification meaning; comments
crm: E13_Attribute_Assignment rso:DataAnnotation annotation
  oac:hasTarget link to target
  oac:Target,rdf:Statement annotation target (being a statement)
rso:root dcterms:partOf Museum Object being annotated
crm: P140_assigned_attribute_to rdf:subject subject of statement being annotated
rso:property rdf:predicate property-instance being annotated
rso:object rdf:object object/value annotated/proposed
rso:other_object same old object/value criticised/justified

Common properties

The rest of the properties apply to both cases:

RSO+CRM OAC+Reification meaning; comments
  rso:DataAnnotation Won't use Annotation Type oac:Reply: see problem described there
rso:reply_to same point to original oac:Annotation; keep oac:hasTarget pointin towards MO
  oac:hasBody link to body
  oac:Body annotation body
rso:has_link same  
rso:P3_has_title same title. Make subproperty of dcterms:title
rso:P3_has_description same description
rso:P2_reply_disposition same Won't use Annotation Predicates because they are only proposed, not part of the spec
rso:P2_other_disposition same  
rso:P2_annotation_status same  
crm: P14_carried_out_by dcterms:creator creator
crm: P4_has_time-span. P82a_begin_of_the_begin dcterms:created date/time created

Graphical Comparison

A graphical example of Case2 (annotation of Statement) is shown below, comparing the old and new way

Annotation with RSO and CRM

Annotation with OAC and Reification

Diff Comparison

TODO

  • decide on URI scheme. In particular, will the AP (rdf:Statement) have nuxeo:uid or hand-crafted URI based on its components
Labels:
None
Enter labels to add to this page:
Please wait 
Looking for a label? Just start typing.