W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Style

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:06:50 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUGTfMeFxWWoUafPYCONRBEdfzOENrxuCEMA1t_ae_9JSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
To say that one use case does not require a particular feature does
not make a strong argument, in my opinion, for either putting that
feature in the extension document or dropping it.   Style has been
independently requested by different communities, and has a proposed
standards based, inter-community solution, and thus I see it at the
same level (still) as hasState and hasSelector.

If the proposed change, on the other hand, makes an important
requirement now impossible, that would be something to discuss
further! :)


On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
> But IMO it doesn't resonate with the needs of data annotation at the
> record level. In our case this is potentially  the digital records
> describing each the 2.5 billion specimens estimated to be held by the
> world's natural history collections.  The current some several hundred
> million such digital records (the rest are on paper) are littered with
> errors for many reasons, and we are using machine- and human-generated
> annotations to make assertions about how erroneous, incomplete, or
> conflicting records can be transformed into those more fit for one or
> another purpose (as well as to help accelerate the 10-year worldwide
> project to get the rest of the specimen descriptions digitized).  In
> the community doing this, there are several important XML-Schemas and
> RDFS or OWL DL ontologies that have been in play for quite a few years
> and there is \typically/ a need for our annotations to express rather
> arbitrary transformations, or at the very least, for it to be
> machine-deducible that the annotations  are germane to a
> transformation of the oa:Target.
> <StrongOpinion>
> Basically, our current need is for data annotation to address
> fitness-for-purpose, and my guess is that most people annotating
> documents also have that motivation. But it's hard to see how to model
> fitness-for-purpose without reference to knowledge representation in
> the domain of the Body and Topic.  From this perspective, I continue
> to believe that Style doesn't belong in an annotation knowledge
> representation---I see it as just a tool based on thousands of years
> of document production, by which an ao:Annotator is hiding some
> fitness-for-use concept that is potentially integrable with someone
> else's  were it only clearer why the Annotator designated, or cared
> about, that style.  But, if you are able to, e.g. express that your
> red stuff is meant to denote that this part of the document signals
> something the consuming agent should somehow care about, why shouldn't
> that concern be expressed with something less context sensitive than
> "text has red background color".
> </StrongOpinion>
> To the extent that my StrongOpinion analysis is shared, it is perhaps
> an argument that Style belongs in oax.
> Bob Morris
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Shannon Bradshaw
> <shannon.bradshaw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Instead of attaching to the Specific Resource, oa:hasStyle would
>>> attach to the Annotation.
>> +1 from me.
>>> The current requirements from the use cases and stakeholders are only
>>> for describing stylistic or rendering features, rather than arbitrary
>>> transformations.  For example, red strike-through and yellow
>>> background is required, but we don't have a strong case for
>>> transformation of arbitrary XML into HTML or JPEG into PNG.
>> This description resonates with the needs of our user community.
>> -Shannon
> --
> Robert A. Morris
> Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
> UMASS-Boston
> 100 Morrissey Blvd
> Boston, MA 02125-3390
> IT Staff
> Filtered Push Project
> Harvard University Herbaria
> Harvard University
> email: morris.bob@gmail.com
> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
> web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
> ===
> The content of this communication is made entirely on my
> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
> Harvard University.
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 17:07:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:01 UTC