Hi Rob,

I am not sure what the implication of the status quo is.

Concretely, does it mean that the prov mapping[1] holds? If so,
the implication of Constraint 39 (generation-generation-ordering) [2] is
that serialization event is simultaneous to annotation event.
A consequence would be that "datetime" would be the same as "datetime2".

Failure to satisfy this constraint would mean that provenance is
invalid, meaning
that it is logically inconsistent.

A way to address this issue, maybe, would be to change the prov mapping,
... but
I am not sure what this would entail exactly.

Luc

[1] http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/images/provmapping.png
[2]
http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#generation-generation-ordering_text

On 09/10/14 17:41, Rob Sanderson wrote:

As per Luc's comment in #7
#7, and the editor's
note in the Community specification, the current model does not
require separation at the vocabulary level of the conceptual
annotation and the instantiation of it as an Open Annotation resource.
For example, it is clear that someone annotating a book in the 1800s
did not create an Open Annotation document, but did create an
annotation that could be modeled using the specification. In a more
modern use case, the person that conceptualizes the annotation and the
agent responsible for creating the annotation could be different, and
the agent responsible for serializing it could be different again.

Further, collapsing the concept and the serialized model is convenient
for simplicity, but makes it impossible to express further provenance
without breaking out of the model. For example, if it was important to
use the full PROV-O modeling features, the distinction between
serialization and annotation must be distinguished and then
annotatedAt / serializedAt don't belong.

Justification

The justification for separating them is expressiveness. The
justification for not separating them is simplicity. There's always
this trade off.

Proposal

Status quo, unless there's a solid use case provided that can't be
accomplished.

Background

Links

• #7 #7
• http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#Provenance

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10.Web Bug from
https://github.com/notifications/beacon/142275__eyJzY29wZSI6Ik5ld3NpZXM6QmVhY29uIiwiZXhwaXJlcyI6MTcyODQ5MjA3OSwiZGF0YSI6eyJpZCI6NDUzMzQyNDJ9fQ==--12cf088bc7aa7904a0152b1a21a7baff14b0061b.gif

{"@context":"http://schema.org","@type":"EmailMessage","description":"View
this Issue on
GitHub","action":{"@type":"ViewAction","url":"https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/10","name":"View
Issue"}}

Professor Luc Moreau
Head of the Web and Internet Science Group
Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton twitter: @lucmoreau
Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

Let's take it to the WG list, and I'll update this comment to leave a pointer.

In a review, Luc wrote as comment 22:

oa:serializedBy is subProperty of prov:wasAttributedTo is problematic. If PROV reasoning is applied, it may lead to incorrect conclusions (possibly logical inconsistency).

 By attribution-inference 13 (http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#attribution-inference_text),
 If oa:serializedBy is subProperty of prov:wasAttributedTo
 and :ann oa:serializedBy :ag2
 then
  :ann prov:wasGeneratedBy :act2   for some activity :act2
  :act2 prov:wasAssociatedWith :ag2

 Combined with

 By attribution-inference 13 (http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#attribution-inference_text),
 If oa:annotatedBy is subProperty of prov:wasAttributedTo
 and :ann oa:annotatedBy :ag1
 then
  :ann prov:wasGeneratedBy :act1   for some activity :act1
  :act1 prov:wasAssociatedWith :ag1

 By Constraint 9 (generation-generation-ordering) http://www.w3.org/TR/provconstraints/#generation-generation-ordering_text
 If
       :ann prov:wasGeneratedBy :act1  (generation gen1)
       :ann prov:wasGeneratedBy :act2  (generation gen2)

 then  gen1 and gen2 occur simultaneously.

 I don't think this is the intent.

@azaroth42 and @paolociccarese discussed and agree this is a problem that needs to be addressed after FPWD.

@lucmoreau Could you propose a solution?

The options that occur to me:

• Simply drop the subPropertyOf relationship to prov for serializedBy/At. This doesn't feel clean.
• Split the annotation node to always refer to the concept and then not require a node in the graph for the document. So if you want to give serializedBy/At you have a new node that otherwise isn't present. We could then just use the prov terms directly. This feels cleaner ... but a lot more expensive when the information should be captured.

Also discussed on the call today was:

• Drop serializedBy/At completely, but this was not viewed favorably.

Thanks!

Rob said: "Drop serializedBy/At completely, but this was not viewed favorably"

But I would ask, does the value of the serialization event outweigh the mess created by maintaining the separate resources?

The latest version of the vocabulary (2016-06-08) does not include the serializedBy/At properties, ie, this issue seems to be moot. I would propose to close it.

@azaroth42 ?

Well .. we have now the creator + created and the generator + generated. What we cannot express is the fact the the current creator is creating a copy of the original annotation created by the original annotator 100 year ago.

The question is what is the best way to model this situation?
For me it looks like the original annotation should be modeled as a resource (e.g. make a picture of the original annotation written on the book), that resource should have own provenance information. That resource is a book annotation and not a web annotation.

If we agree on this, than we have another problem... do we want to include in annotation the provenance information for the resources? (by reading the text of the annotation it looks like what i required is to be able to represent somewhere within the annotation the fact that the original annotation was created by the original creator..)