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 09:57:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CABzPtBLa==AVecJfn6nRJAFQRFyipWR8Ai_R4jzKgUN1fdV+Yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
Thanks Rob! It's muchly appreciated. Is it possibly to also subtract out
3.2.4 into its own thread too? It's really tangential to the Role
discussion but has high impact for SpecificResources.

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 9:50 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> And my apologies that it wasn't clear.  I wondered about making two
> documents, but as there's so much overlap in the content, it didn't make
> sense, compared to two sections in the one document.
>
> I'll make a thread regarding Multiplicity and roles, as you (and Stian)
> are very much on target with your comments in that space.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>
Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 14:58:58 UTC

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