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

Re: Style

From: Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:56:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAL6JQg4E2pwBHgObWdbL4bA+LevvW3e=haBxyfofo3yVr4MdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Cc: shannon.bradshaw@gmail.com, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
> <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.

Apologies if I'm reviving an old thread, but I think this is well
argued. Particularly given the fact that no sub-classes of Style are
currently in the core, putting it in the extension begins to strike me
as reasonable.
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 06:56:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 September 2012 06:56:56 GMT