- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:16:17 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
> On 17 Dec 2015, at 18:00, gsergiu <notifications@github.com> wrote: > > @BigBlueHat <https://github.com/BigBlueHat> > 1. I think that the relationship between the body and the annotation is very clear. The Body is the "payload" of the annotation, and that is all. The body is not about annotation but the body is about the target as basic fundament for annotations. > > Currently the Movitation should say, why I user creates an annotaion, expressing so the relationship between the Body and Target, still they are again very general statements, which (currently) impose no restriction on bodies. So ... they cannot be used for any kind inference (right now)! > > I think that specifications of a standard should be technology independent, and must represent a conceptual model. > ... Yes ... it is a Web Related standard and must be compliant with web technologies. And I think that big improvements where made when the JSON-LD serialization was introduced (which is in fact the bridge between the Object and RDF world, showing that they are not mutually exclusive concepts) > > I'm sorry, if I sent a lot of text that at the first glace doesn't seems to be relevant for the original question. But now I can conclude my questions: > > a) Does the "role" have a clear definition and an clear naming so that a proper name can be found? > I find the definition and the example quite ambigous > http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/#roles-for-external-resources <http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/#roles-for-external-resources> > What I would expect in the annotation is to say that the resource indicated by the given URL is a "place" or a city. Motivation:tagging + role:tagging is redundant and confusing. > > b) Shouldn't the "role" indicate types or relationships? > As it is written in the definition "as the role specifies the way in which the resource is used in the context of the Annotation" > > Through the context of annotation I understand: the BODY saying something about the TARGET driven by the MOTIVATION. > What is missing in this content is the "something" , what the body tries to say (as the URL doesn't provide much information, especially when the mime type is not provided) > I think what I am wary about is to over-formalize things. When you say: > Shouldn't the "role" indicate types or relationships? what I presume you mean is to have some sort of a formal set of terms, defined maybe through some RDF properties, maybe even OWL to characterize them more strictly (or other formalism), etc, etc. This *could* be done, specification wise, but I do not think it would be widely used and adopted. The history (to use a big word) of the past few years have shown that the very "loose" set of semantics exemplified by tags, or the semi-loose tags that are done in SKOS have a much bigger chance of usage. So my my answer two that question would be "why?". Why should the role indicate (formal) types of relationships? What does a system really gain by having that? Both roles and motivations are kind of loose. We do have some (SKOS-like) terms, but the fact that they are loose is actually by design (again, just like SKOS terms often are). I do not really see the use case to do anything more complex than that. -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/112#issuecomment-165518679 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2015 17:16:21 UTC