Re: CFC: Basic Roles Proposal

Doug,

comment on one issue

> On 28 Aug 2015, at 24:09 , Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> 

<skip>
> 
> Here is (something like) the current proposal:
> 
>  {
>    "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld",
>    "type": "Annotation",
>    "target": {
>      "source": "http://example.com/as-we-may-think.html",
>      "selector": {
>        "type": "oa:TextQuoteSelector",
>        "exact": "items",
>        "prefix": "The process of tying two ",
>        "suffix": " together is the important thing."
>      }
>    },
>    "body": [
>      {
>        "role": "editing", // UA2 uses
>        "content": "items"
>      },
>      {
>        "role": "commenting", // UA2 uses
>        "content": "This should be about concepts, not mechanical artifacts."
>      },
>      {
>        "role": "tagging", // UA2 uses
>        "content": [
>          {
>            "value": "correction"
>          },
>          {
>            "value": "memex"
>          }
>        ]
>      },
>      {
>        "role": "bookmarking", // standard, UA2 doesn't use
>        "content": "folder:thesis" //BS value, don't know what would go here…
>      },
>      { // UA2 uses
>        "role": "versioning", // vendor-specific, UA2 doesn't use
>        "content": "4th draft"
>      }
>    }
>  }
> 
> Here is an alternate proposal based on Bill Hunt's suggestion [1], which I'm putting forward as a strawman; Bill has suggested that this may be a better performance optimization for clients (which is important, if it's correct), while others have said that it makes other aspects of the model more difficult.
> 
>  {
>    "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld",
>    "type": "Annotation",
>    "target": {
>      "source": "http://example.com/as-we-may-think.html",
>      "selector": {
>        "type": "oa:TextQuoteSelector",
>        "exact": "items",
>        "prefix": "The process of tying two ",
>        "suffix": " together is the important thing."
>      }
>    },
>    "body": {
>      "editing": { // UA2 uses
>        "content": "items"
>      },
>      "commenting": { // UA2 uses
>        "content": "This should be about concepts, not mechanical artifacts."
>      },
>      "tagging": [ // UA2 uses
>        {
>          "content": "correction"
>        },
>        {
>          "content": "memex"
>        }
>      ],
>      "bookmarking": { // standard, UA2 doesn't use
>        "content": "folder:thesis" //BS value, don't know what would go here…
>      },
>      "versioning": { // vendor-specific, UA2 doesn't use
>        "content": "4th draft"
>      }
>    }
>  }
> 

This pretty much the same construction than the one we have discussed in the past few weeks:

https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations#Role_as_Subproperty_of_hasBody.2FhasTarget

saying, essentially, that roles are expressed in terms of properties and not as predefined values (which is the case for all other constructions).

I voted against this approach on the call 10 days ago. I am indeed concerned about the possible proliferation of property names that this would require (the names of roles is an extension point, in a way, applications may want to add their own), meaning that implementations would have to keep up with the existing roles all the time (because if they don't, they could hit a property in the hierarchy that they have no idea what to do with, they do not know whether it is a role or something else). Whereas, if roles are values, the fact of having it as a value of a 'role' predicate/property in the path gives a clear indication what the value stands for, even if it is unknown (which also makes the role-as-a-value approach more robust against possible misspelling).

Ivan


> 
> 
> 
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0017.html
> 
> Regards–
> –Doug
> 
> 
> On 8/23/15 6:37 PM, Robert Sanderson 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
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704