Re: CFC: Basic Roles Proposal

Jacob,

The CFC is *only* for section 3.1 -- are there any features in 3.1 that
mean you're -1 ?

Rob

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:

> -1 so long as it contains 3.2.4
>
> If 3.2.4 can be removed to a separate issue, then +0.75.
>
> I feel like someone has added some tax appropriations for their highway to
> an EPA funding bill. If an issue is not directly related (like the proposed
> hasSource name change) then we should discuss it separately.
>
> Some folks are of the opinion that changing to hasContent has no real
> impact on the model but once you start using multiplicity constructs and
> selectors it is no longer clear what was intended to be meant by saying
> hasConstruct. For instance compare:
>
> <http://example.org/anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
>      oa:hasTarget [ oa:hasSelector <http://example.org/selector1> ;
>                              oa:hasSource <http://example.org/target1> ]
> ;
>      oa:hasBody [ oa:hasSource <http://example.org/tag1> ] .
>
> to
>
> <http://example.org/anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
>      oa:hasTarget [ oa:hasSelector <http://example.org/selector1> ;
>                              oa:hasContent <http://example.org/target1> ]
> ;
>      oa:hasBody [ oa:hasContent <http://example.org/tag1> ] .
>
>
> The intended meaning of hasContent is only clear in the simple cases when
> selectors are not being employed (i.e., when the SpecificResource is simply
> a b-node interposed between the annotation node and that actual body /
> target content). This is not the case as soon as we employ Selectors.
>
> This will be similarly true for non-trivial multiplicity cases. Consider
> the pattern.
>
> <http://example.org/anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
>     oa:hasTarget <http://example.org/target1> ;
>     oa:hasBody [
>         a oa:Choice ;
>         oa:member [ <http://example.org/body1> ;
>                              <http://example.org/body2> ] ;
>     ] .
>
> Assuming that oa:Choice is a sub-class of oa:SpecificResource then under
> the suggested regime of 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 it must become
>
> <http://example.org/anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
>     oa:hasTarget <http://example.org/target1> ;
>     oa:hasBody [
>         a oa:Choice ;
>         oa:member [ <http://example.org/body1> ;
>                              <http://example.org/body2> ] ;
>        oa:hasSource <???>
>     ] .
>
> I'm not even sure what we'd use for the object of the hasSource /
> hasContent predicate but we have to have one because it's a MUST in the
> draft. The CFC seems a bit premature as it failed to consider all of the
> implications and, this proposal has some very serious implications for
> important portions of the model. While fixing some issues it introduces
> others. An easy solution is to either keep the multiplicity constructs as
> separate (sibling) specific resource types that don't require a hasSource /
> hasContent predicate or to relax the MUST to a MAY or to adopt some rather
> complicated language explaining when hasSource / hasContent SHOULD be used.
>
> And of course the objects of oa:member could be Specific Resources
> themselves making an infinite recursion possible...
>
> 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 Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to update the working group's
>> Annotation Model deliverable according to the changes specified in section
>> 3.1 of this document:
>>     http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/roles.html
>>
>> Please respond to this CfC by the 1st of September 2015.  Any response is
>> valuable, even just a simple +1.  Silence will be considered as agreement.
>> This CfC will complete the process discussed in last week's teleconference.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> --
>> Rob Sanderson
>> Information Standards Advocate
>> Digital Library Systems and Services
>> Stanford, CA 94305
>>
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305