OAC Presentation at CNI 09 Fall Forum

<h#p://www.openannota.on.org/> 

Robert Sanderson      –      rsanderson@lanl.gov 
                                            azaroth42@gmail.com 
Herbert Van de Sompel   –    herbertv@lanl.gov 
                                              hvdsomp@gmail.com 

Digital Library Research and Prototyping Team 
Los Alamos NaDonal Laboratory, USA 

This research was funded by the Andrew W. Mellon FoundaDon.  Acknowledgements: Tim Cole, 
Bernhard Haslhofer, Jane Hunter, Ray Larson, Cliﬀ Lynch, Michael Nelson, Doug Reside 

Interoperable Annotation
Rob Sanderson, Herbert Van de Sompel
CNI Fall Task Force Meeting, Dec 14-15, Washington DC

Overview

•  The Collaboration and Project

•  Interoperability:
•  Status
•  Basic Principles
•  Current Data Model
•  Protocol-less Approach
•  Demo

•  Summary

Interoperable Annotation   Slide: 2 

The Collaboration

•  Los Alamos National Labs (Data Modeling and Interoperability)
•  Herbert Van de Sompel (PI)
•  Robert Sanderson

•  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
•  Tim Cole (PI)
•  Allen Renear
•  Carole Palmer
•  Tom Habing

•  University of Queensland
•  Jane Hunter (PI)
•  Anna Gerber
•  Ron Chernich

•  University of Maryland
•  Neil Fraistat (PI)
•  Douglas Reside

•  George Mason University
•  Dan Cohen
•  Sean Takats


The Project

•  Aims
•  Facilitate a Web-centric interoperable annotation environment
•  Demonstrate the proposed environment for scholarly use-cases
•  Seed adoption by deployment of high-visibility production systems

•  Phase I
•  Exploration of Existing Systems, Requirements and Use Case analysis
•  Initial Interoperability Specification
•  Integration of AXE and Zotero

•  Mellon Foundation Funded
•  Alerted to possibility through JSTOR (unfunded partner)
•  14 Months for Phase I
•  Hope to proceed to Phases II and III


Advisory Board

•  Members
•  Maristella Agosti (University of Padua)
•  Geoffrey Bilder (CrossRef)
•  John Bradley (King's College London)
•  Gregory Crane (Tufts University)
•  Paul Eggert (Australian Scholarly Editions Centre)
•  Julia Flanders (Brown University)
•  Cliff Lynch (Chair) (Coalition for Networked Information)
•  Cathy Marshall (Microsoft Research)
•  Martin Mueller (Northwestern University)
•  Geoffrey Rockwell (University of Alberta)
•  David Ruddy (Cornell University Library)
•  Joyce Rudinsky (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)
•  Mackenzie Smith (MIT Libraries)
•  Amanda Ward (Nature Publishing Group)
•  John Wilbanks (Science Commons)


Technical Group

•  Open List
•  Anyone can join and discuss
•  Discussions visible, not behind closed doors committee
•  http://groups.google.com/group/oac-tech

•  Current Members:
•  Bruce D'Arcus (University of Ohio)
•  Anna Gerber (University of Queensland)
•  Tom Habing (UIUC)
•  Bernhard Haslhofer (University of Vienna)
•  Michael Nelson (Old Dominion University)
•  Rob Sanderson (LANL)
•  Ed Summers (Library of Congress)
•  Herbert Van de Sompel (LANL)

•  Please join, or have your techie join!


Interoperability: Status

•  Requirements and Use Cases
•  Gathered from scholars, mainly humanities
•  Gathered from scholarly literature

•  Initial Design
•  First part of Phase I, Thread I (LANL)
•  Discussed in f2f at UC Berkeley (Collaborators plus invited experts)

•  Feedback
•  Difficulty of defining what an 'annotation' actually is
•  Model too generic!
•  Risk of Everything being an Annotation

•  Reaction
•  We (Rob and Herbert) tend to agree

We Want Your Feedback!


Interoperability: Basic Principles

•  Effort focuses on Interoperability to allow annotation sharing
•  This is what we were funded to do!
•  Many MANY non-interoperable annotation systems already
•  Existing interoperability mechanisms (eg Annotea) need updating

•  Interoperability approach is based on the Architecture of the Web
•  Communication is increasingly online
•  Resources of interest are increasingly online
•  Maximize chance of adoption by not being domain-centric
•  Semantic Web principles and Linked Data guidelines important

•  Entities within the model must be identified by HTTP URIs
•  … when possible
•  From Linked Data guidelines
•  Globally unique identifiers without central system overhead
•  Locator as well as Identifier: can retrieve representation


Current Data Model

•  Alpha Data Model

•  Not set in stone, please provide feedback!

•  Not published as a specification, just guidelines and 'current thinking'
•  Implemented as demonstrator, not production system
•  Informed by previous work and expert contributions
•  4th internal iteration of model

•  Guided by Requirements and Use Cases
•  Will build up in steps with appropriate justification
•  Conflicting requirements possible (e.g. simple yet powerful and flexible)
•  Helps to ensure adoption and understanding by minimizing unnecessary or
unused features
•  Keeps specification authors in touch with real users and needs


Data Model: Step 1

Requirement:
Users must be able to create an annotation with some content about a target
resource

Principle:
An annotation is an event at a moment in time, initiated by an agent, with a
source of content and a target. There is an implicit or explicit relationship
between the source and target expressed by the annotation.


Step 1: Baseline Model

The intuitive model is that we have a Source of Content (S-1), which annotates a
Target resource (T-1). We add an Annotation node (A-1) that represents the
annotation event.

The Source of Content must have some relationship to the Target. By default, it
should be somehow 'about' the Target for it to be considered an Annotation.


Step 1: Baseline Model

As entities in the baseline model, both Content and Target are resources on the web.
Thus they can be of any type, format, language (or not language at all), location, …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgg2tpUVbXQ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg


Step 1b: Properties and Relationships

Properties and relationships can now be
attached to the Annotation.

This diagram shows the other information
from the initial use case: who created the
annotation (U-1), when they created it
(datetime) and the relationship (called a
predicate, P-1) between Content and
Target.

Diagram Style Note:
•  Entities are circles
•  Values are ovals with data type
•  Relationships/Properties are named lines



oac:annotates 
hSp://
public.lanl.gov/ 
rsanderson 

2009-12-03 09:30:00

oac: 
annotates 



oac:annotates 
hSp://
public.lanl.gov/ 
rsanderson 

2009-12-03 12:06:00

oac: 
annotates 

http://twitter.com/azaroth42/status/6312196800


Data Model: Step 2

Requirement:

The model must support systems
which only support a user-
entered string as the content of
the annotation.

Principle:

Annotations must allow for
content and target of any media
type and format.

Fab4 Client: http://bodoni.lib.liv.ac.uk/fab4/
(Extensive functionality, but only string content)


Step 2: String Content

To allow for this common case, we can
assign a unique non resolvable URI
called a URN. This is an exception to
the HTTP URIs for everything principle.
(We will come back to this later)

The text is captured in the oac:body
property.

We define a Note class which can be
used with either a protocol or non
protocol URI, as a hint to the client to
not bother dereferencing the URI and
instead look in oac:body.


Step 2: String Content

urn:uuid:1234‐567… 

"The Hubble Deep 
Field image is very 
impressive!" 


Data Model: Step 3

Requirement:

The model must enable the user to select a part of the resource as the target for their
annotation, not just the entire resource.

Pliny Client: http://pliny.cch.kcl.ac.uk/ Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/raindog/75675947/


Step 3: Segments of Resources

W3C Media Fragment URIs allow us to create a URI that identifies a segment of a
resource for common cases.

e.g:
http://…/foo.jpg#xywh=160,120,320,240

… identifies a 320 by 240 box, at 160,120
in the image foo.jpg


Step 3: Segments of Resources

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg#xywh=400,80,100,100


Data Model: Step 4

Requirement:
It is important to be able to express non-rectangular regions of a resource for
situations where a rectangle cannot unambiguously delineate the region of interest.

Principle:
Content and Target must be able to
be arbitrary parts or segments of a
resource.

http://dme.arcs.ac.at/image-annotation-frontend/


Step 4: Complex Segments

In this case, we use a Context node (C-1)
with a Segment Description (SD-1). This
can be of any format, and will be
dependent on the properties of the Target.

A description for a segment of an image
might be an SVG path, an XPath for XML,
a speaker in an audio track.

Work exists on this topic for common
cases, such as in MPEG-7.

Segments of complex objects such as
databases, datasets, or other non-
traditional media will require more
research.


Step 4: Complex Segments


SVG 

http://annotation.lanl.gov/docs/0.1/examples/4.svg


Data Model: Step 5

Requirement:
The annotation should be able to
have more than one target resource
or segment, when the annotation
concerns multiple resources or
creates a relationship between
resources.

Principle:
The model must support multiple
contents and targets of annotation.

Pseudo multiple targets in Adobe Acrobat


Step 5: Number of Targets

This is modeled in a very predictable way.

Note that the relationship from the Content applies to all of the Targets.


Step 5: Number of Targets

oac:annotates 

oac: 
annotates 


Step 5b: Number of Content Sources

Although somewhat exotic, multiple content sources also can be modeled.

Use Cases:

•  Same comment expressed in different
formats (txt, MathML)

•  Same comment expressed in different
media (txt, mp3)

•  Same comment later translated to
different language, format, media,
locations


Step 5b: Number of Content Sources

oac:annotates 

MP3 

oac: 
annotates 


Data Model: Step 6

Requirement:
The annotation should be robust across time with respect to changing resources,
such that the annotation is applied correctly to the version of the resource which was
originally annotated. This will prevent misinterpretation of the annotation and take
steps towards the digital preservation of the resources involved as well as the
annotation.

Please also come to hear about Memento tomorrow morning!

Step 6: Robust Annotations in Time

http://news.bbc.co.uk/




Solution 1:

The created timestamp for the Annotation should be used as the date/time of the
version of the content and target resources. Unless the version is specified explicitly.

2009-12-01 12:00:00

But what about "Sad story yesterday …" sort
of annotations?



Solution 2: Solution 3:
The Context node can record the Annotate an appropriate archived copy of
timestamp of when the annotation applies the resource (e.g. in Internet Archive),
to the target, if not at the creation time of and relate it back to the original to enable
the annotation. Storing other information appropriate discovery and rendering.
such as digests is also possible.


Data Model: Step 7

Requirement:
A description of the annotation must be made available for dissemination in an
interoperable method, following the Web Architecture and Linked Data guidelines.

http://code.google.com/apis/sidewiki/docs/2.0/developers_guide_protocol.html http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/User/Protocol.html


Step 7: Annotation "Transcription"

We follow the same conventions as Linked Data (and OAI-ORE) and introduce a
'transcription' of the annotation as a resource on the web. This can be retrieved using
HTTP and includes all of the data and metadata concerning the annotation and other
objects in the model.

http://annotation.lanl.gov/docs/0.1/examples/7.rdf


Alpha Data Model


Background for Data Model

Background Research:
•  Annotea
•  LEMO
•  DiLAS
•  Fab4
•  Pliny
•  Google SideWiki
•  Flickr Annotations
•  Richard Newman's Tag Model
•  … plus 3 extensions
•  Common Tag Model
•  Henry Story's Tag Model
•  Many online web annotation systems

We believe that our data model covers everything that we have seen as well as the
requirements and use cases expressed.


Protocol-less Approach

Existing systems are tightly coupled:
•  The client sends the annotation to the server to store
•  The server sends the annotation to clients on request

Annotea is a REST protocol, Google Sidewiki uses ATOM plus
extensions, most are proprietary.

We believe this is a hindrance to interoperability … any protocol
that ties servers and clients together is a hindrance to
interoperability from the Linked Data perspective.

We recommend no protocol, as opposed to not recommending
a protocol.

. . o O (This from key players in OAI-PMH and SRU… have
they totally lost it??)



Existing systems are tightly coupled: Google  Google 
•  The client sends the annotation to the server to store Interface  Interface 
•  The server sends the annotation to clients on request

Annotea is a REST protocol, Google Sidewiki uses ATOM plus Google  Google 
extensions, most are proprietary. Protocol  Protocol 

Google 
interoperability from the Linked Data perspective. SideWiki 

We recommend no protocol, as opposed to not recommending Google 
a protocol. Protocol 

Google 
Interface 



Existing systems are tightly coupled: Google  Google 
Google 
•  The client sends the annotation to the server to store
Google  Interface  Interface 
Mail 
•  The Docs  sends the annotation to clients on request
server

Annotea is a REST protocol, Google Sidewiki uses ATOM plus Google  Google 
extensions, most are proprietary. Google  Protocol  Protocol 
Google  DNS 
Wave 
Google 
interoperability from the Linked Data perspective. SideWiki 
Google 
Google  HTTPS 
Chromium 
We recommend no protocol, as opposed to not recommending Google 
a protocol. OS  Protocol 

Google  Google 
Droid  Google  Interface 
Chrome 



Breaking This Apart Promotes Interoperability:

•  The client sends the annotation somewhere to
store (or multiple places)

•  The server retrieves the annotation
•  … using regular discovery/harvesting
techniques (Pull)
•  … on demand from the client
(Pull on demand)
•  … by being one of the places the client
sends the annotation to (Push)

•  The server is just one service that can send the
annotation to clients on request



Breaking This Apart Promotes Interoperability: Preferred  Preferred 
Interface  Interface 
•  The client sends the annotation somewhere to
store (or multiple places)

•  The server retrieves the annotation
•  … using regular discovery/harvesting Harvester  Harvester 
techniques (Pull)
•  … on demand from the client
(Pull on demand) Blog  
•  … by being one of the places the client TwiSer 
sends the annotation to (Push) Web Server 

•  The server is just one service that can send the
annotation to clients on request Preferred 
Interface 



Consequences:
•  Multiple servers, aggregators or other applications can access the annotation
•  The client can use whatever protocol is needed by the storage server(s)
•  Annotations are regular web resources by necessity
•  Access control is just like any other access control on the web

•  Services can be used to extend information in annotation
•  Add extra information for robustness over time
•  Add extra information for robustness of segment location
•  Text Mining, Data Mining services
•  Graph/Relationship Mining across other annotations
•  …

•  Servers can replace URNs with real URIs
•  Multiple servers can do this, and will deduplicate with original identifier
•  Use well known owl:sameAs predicate for this


Demonstration!

Let's See This Working!

(Or at least a screen capture of it working, given the poor network here)


Summary

Collaboration:
•  Up and working

Data Model:
•  Alpha version ready for feedback:
•  Not a specification document
•  Covers use cases, requirements and previous work
•  Based on Linked Data and the Web Architecture
•  Protocol-less interactions between distributed servers and clients


Thank You 

Thank You!

Questions?

Pointers:
•  http://www.openannotation.org/

•  http://groups.google.com/group/oac-tech
•  azaroth42@gmail.com ; hvdsomp@gmail.com

•  This presentation being videoed, will be posted on CNI website
•  http://www.slideshare.com/ …
•  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_7rgsQHuHA


OAC Presentation at CNI 09 Fall Forum

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (12)

Similaire à OAC Presentation at CNI 09 Fall Forum

Similaire à OAC Presentation at CNI 09 Fall Forum (20)

Plus de Robert Sanderson

Plus de Robert Sanderson (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

OAC Presentation at CNI 09 Fall Forum