Re: [data-model] Proposed Abstract for Web Annotation Data Model Spec

(not as chair)

Maybe I’m late to this, but does this help with this discussion:

“An annotation is a relationship between some information and a resource and can take many forms. It can be text providing a comment on other text, a tag on a document, a comment relating to a portion of an image or audio, or many other things. This document outlines a general model that accommodates many possibilities.”


regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
@fjhirsch



On Nov 13, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi, Ray–
> 
> On 11/13/14 10:38 AM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
>> 
>> I don't want to get too hung up on the first sentence of an
>> abstract.
>> 
>> However, comparing;
>> 
>> · Mine: “An Annotation asserts information about a resource”
>> 
>> · Yours: "An annotation is a piece of information attached to
>> a document or other resource"
>> 
>> I like yours as much as mine, maybe better …. except for the fact
>> that it isn’t accurate.
>> 
>> If X is “about”  Y, X is not the annotation.  The annotation is a
>> (third) resource which asserts that X is about Y.
> 
> I don't agree.
> 
> I know other people who agree with your concept of what an annotation is, but I don't think that's a useful level of abstraction.
> 
> To me, and I suspect to most other people, the thing that distinguishes an annotation from a primary resources is that it contains not only content, but the link that asserts that that content pertains to another resource.
> 
> In other words, it is both the vehicle and the payload.
> 
> I think this is borne out in the data model. An annotation contains one or more target links and selectors, and one (zero?) or more bodies.
> 
> Obviously, you can make an annotation that simply links two targets without making an explicit statement about them or their relation, but that's the degenerate (and less common) case.
> 
> So, I'd suggest that if X is “about”  Y, (X + the "about" assertion) is the annotation.
> 
> What do others think?
> 
> 
>> How to capture
>> that in the first sentence of an abstract without blowing the  mind
>> of a someone reading the abstract just trying to decide whether
>> annotations are of interest, is admittedly difficult.   But I think,
>> while the two are probably equally helpful, mine is more accurate.
> 
> Respectfully, I think yours definition is reasonably accurate, but abstruse; it would be difficult for the average reader who's not versed in the jargon of semweb (or similar disciplines) to unpack.
> 
> I don't really care about my definition per se; I do care about the abstract being both accurate and in plain English.
> 
> Regards-
> -Doug
>

Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 20:04:41 UTC