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

"“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.”



Similar problem.  The "It" beginning the second sentence refers to the annotation, when it really should refer to the annotation body.



A slight change can fix that:



“An annotation is a relationship between some information and a resource.  and The information 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.”



I’d go a  step further:



“An annotation is a relationship between some information and a resource.  and The information can take many forms and serve many purposes. 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.”





Ray



> -----Original Message-----

> From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:w3c@fjhirsch.com]

> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 3:04 PM

> To: Doug Schepers

> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; Denenberg, Ray; W3C Public Annotation List

> Subject: 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

> >

>