Re: [web-annotation] How do we model "groups" in the Annotation model?

@tcole said:
> The schema.org audience property and Audience class is generally 
adequate as is to describe a Group as the audience of an annotation, 
allowing annotation authors to point to a further description of a 
Group when needed, and as necessary allows communities to offer their 
own extended models of audience-related attributes of a Group. Using 
schema.org annotation agents can name the Group that is the target of 
an annotation (schema:audienceType), and for certain existing 
sub-types of Audience (e.g., PeopleAudience), annotation agents can 
provide additional audience-relevant attributes of the Group, e.g., 
gender, min. age, max age. And of course through schema:url, 
schema:sameAs, additional rdfa typeOf, annotation creators can link to
 further information about a Group relevant to its other 
(non-audience) roles in the annotation ecosystem.

This seems to reinforce what I claimed:
> We agreed to use the schema.org/Audience class. It has a bunch of 
subclasses defined by schema.org[…] an instance can use the 
`audienceType` property whose value is any text, and that can be used 
to model any collection of users, a.k.a. groups in this sense. What 
this tells me is that the non-authorization and non-access-control 
aspect of a group can be modeled by Audience, ie, by what we have 
accepted to use. That part is done. 

And I keep to my opinion: that is covered, and we should not introduce
 a new concept for a "group" in our terminology and into our model. My
 proposal is to close down that aspect of the issue.

(As @tcole said, there may be a more complex concept of a group, but I
 would object to get into a complex set of description to characterize
 those entities; I am not even sure what would really be what we 
described. Leave that for either future releases or for other groups 
(sic!) out there.)

---

On the "authorization" aspect, @shepazu also said:
> […] if we want interoperability, we may wish to add a normative 
requirement that a UA SHOULD honor a stated restriction, whether that 
is group or some other well-defined "audience" (I can imagine that 
students might not have access to instructor annotations on a 
textbook, for example).

and also added:
> To be clear, I'm not suggesting we define those access-restricted 
categories, just that we enable communities to do so

The way I read these lines is to add something saying: 
> “User Agents should honor any access restrictions that may be 
specified for a given audience, although this specification does not 
define how to express those access restrictions.”

(or something similar after suitable wordsmithing.)

I am fine with such a statement being added which probably reflects 
what we all think (and covers the example @shepazu gave). This can be 
added to the text about audiences (as a note, for example, not to 
disrupt that flow of the text). 

This may allow to close this issue and move on.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/119#issuecomment-161924827
 using your GitHub account

Received on Friday, 4 December 2015 09:55:03 UTC