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

+1 for seeing all this processed into one thing and picking back up
from there. :)

One comment (which I'm not even clear still matters) is about this
phrase: "interoperable framework for creating annotations"

It survived several of the previous revisions, but not sure it's still
around. If it is still around (or things like it) it should be changed
to something like:
"interoperable framework for representing annotations" (or "expressing
annotations").

Since a Data Model doesn't really create anything, but rather
represents (or perhaps expresses) something.

Throw that in with the others if you care to. ;)

Looking forward to seeing a combined draft!

Thanks, all!
Benjamin
--
Developer Advocate
http://hypothes.is/

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote:
> 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
>> >
>>
>
>

Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 21:17:38 UTC