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

I think the distinction is between "contains" and "references", both of
which are possible but have different semantics and are derived from
different and valid mindsets.

The Annotation resource in the data model is _not_ the Body resource... so
an instance of the Annotation class in the model is the link between the
Body/Bodies and the Target/Targets, whereas common parlance would have the
annotation [lower case a] also semantically include a (typically textual)
comment.  I think that Ray is meaning Annotation and Doug is meaning
annotation.

>From the principles:
    An Annotation is a resource that represents the link between resources,
or a selection within a resource.

Formally, the Annotation is only the aboutness, not the X and not the Y.
So from the model's perspective, the Annotation does not include X (which
indeed may not even exist in the case of highlights or bookmarks).

In the serialization, however, we return more information than just the
Annotation resource, including information about the body, target,
selectors, styles, agents, and so forth that any client will actually
need.  Therefore thinking from a document perspective, textual bodies are
contained within the document, so it's natural to conclude from this point
of view that the body is part of, rather than referenced from, the
annotation [lower case a intentional].

I hope that makes sense?

To move forwards, I propose that the editors take this discussion into
account, but that we not delay FPWD for WG level word-smithing on the
abstract.

Rob


On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:30 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
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Technology Collaboration Facilitator
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305