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

Ray

I like your third version, it improves what I offered and makes sense.  Maybe we can use that; 

Maybe the editors can make a pass on the document and then share a link that I can use for a CfC :)

thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Co-Chair W3C Web Annotation WG
@fjhirsch



On Nov 14, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:

> "“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
> > >
> >