W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > August 2015

Re: CFC: Basic Roles Proposal

From: Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:44:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CABzPtB+dPPo0vBvYJQt13MLw5xmuibxn2g2W8rqk_VcA5F30iQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
Hi Rob,

Sorry. That the CFC is only for section 3.1 was not clear to me at all. I
am then +0.75 for just the 3.1 portion. How roles affect constructs like
Choice and Composite, among others, is not discussed at all. So I
necessarily have some reservations.

We seem to be focused on simplifying the simple cases rather than
simplifying the complex cases, which is a bit worrisome because all the
"gotcha's" are going to pop up with the latter cases rather than the former
ones.

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, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> 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
>
Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 14:45:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:39 UTC