- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:00:19 +0100
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>, Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
I am unable to comment on 3.1 in isolation without knowing what is the (implied or specified) type of the object that has oa:role. We know we don't want to apply it directly to the annotated resource. The oa:text part of the 3.1 proposal is fine by me - but I am not sure what is the actual proposal of changes from your section 3.1 as it just shows examples. On 24 August 2015 at 15:37, 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 -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, eScience Lab School of Computer Science The University of Manchester http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 16:01:10 UTC