Re: [web-annotation] Require dct:Text class for interpretation of literal bodies

This presents a slippery slope. Commenting isn't the only role the text
literal may play. What happens if we have to expand this to encompass
things like explanation, description, etc. Haven't we just made motivation
a completely obsolete concept within the model?

Better would be if we could do away with the string literal bodies.
Alternately we might move the motivation to the body node?

I'm starting to think that the multiple bodies portion of the model
presents a significant challenge to the utility of motivation. It's
ambiguous what role each body plays in such an annotation because the
motivations don't neatly pair up with the bodies. This was also a problem
when we tried to develop a taxonomy of annotation types.

Regards,

Jacob



_____________________________________________________
Jacob Jett
Research Assistant
Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
(217) 244-2164
jjett2@illinois.edu


On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Rob Sanderson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
wrote:

> Currently the usage of a literal body is ambiguous as to whether the
> text is a comment or a tag, leaving implementers to guess based on
> motivations and heuristics.  This would make it explicit that a
> literal body is *always* a comment and never a tag.  The reason why
> motivation is insufficient is that there can be multiple bodies on an
> annotation, all could be literals, with a mixture of comments and
> tags:
>
> ```
> {
>   "@type": "oa:Annotation",
>   "motivatedBy": ["oa:commenting", "oa:tagging"],
>   "hasBody" : ["comment", "tag"],
>   "hasTarget": "http://example.org/"
> }
> ```
>
> It's an outcome from the thread:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Apr/0139.html
>
> --
> GitHub Notif of comment by azaroth42
> See
> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/31#issuecomment-96661471
>
>