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

Re: [web-annotation] Rename `role` to `motive`

From: gsergiu via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:28:11 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-165778807-1450445290-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Hi Ivan, 

Let's be clear, I don't use either RDF not OWL. I build a REST Api for
 managing Annotations using a  JSON-LD serialization (for now the only
 supported format).
My API will get Annotations from 4 different clients, and I want to 
make sure that all 4 clients are using the same serialiazation for the
 same type of Annotations. 

1. Concretely, I want that (embeded) tags are tags and not comments 
for example.

The serialization is the same, motivation is different. 
However, I expect that more tagets get tagged with the same tag label,
 and I don't expect two find the same comments on more targets. I 
would expect that the tags don't exceed a given size (e.g. 5 words or 
50 chars).
Consequently, when I want to search for targets (resources) that are 
tagged with the same tag I want to get more results, and I expect 100%
 precision. Which means a search for "New Year" should not return a 
tag with the lable "New Year's Eve". In contrast, if they are 
comments, I want to get both results.

I'm not sure if the definition of maximum of the size of tags should 
be included in the normative part of the specifications, but is for 
sure not bad to introduce it.  
 
 2. I find the bookmarking-tagging example a very confusing thing. How
 do yout think that a human user will interpret this serialization if 
he is not reading the text of the "Example Use Case"?
{
  "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld",
  "id": "http://example.org/anno10",
  "type":"Annotation",
  "motivation": "bookmarking",
  "body": {
    "text" : "readme",
    "role" : "tagging"
  },
  "target": "http://example.org/page1"
}

What is the purpose of this annotation? Is it bookmarking ... which 
should be a "mark in a book" and I expect it to be unique. Or is it 
tagging, for which I expect a quite different behaviour. 

"Labeling and tagging are carried out to perform functions such as 
aiding in classification, marking ownership, noting boundaries, and 
indicating online identity." as described in ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_%28metadata%29

If you look at bookmarking functionality in different systems, indeed 
you have a location, a label (that you also have in tags), and 
probably some keywords. 

If the intention is to say that Bookmarking is a special king of 
Tagging, than this should be represented in the skos vocabulary for 
Motivation,  and you can simply use motivation:Bookmarking and add the
 label "text":"readme" in the Body.  

That would be a very natural representation for me ... the current 
one, given the current specifications, seems to be only a merge of 2 
Annotations (one for bookmarking and one for tagging ... if that is 
needed anyway). I remmeber that in the OA was explicitly said that 
Bookmarks might/should have no Bodies.... 

3. In my Opinion the Target - Motivation - Body should be understood 
as a triple. 
As the predicate imposes a Class for the object, so I expect that the 
Motivation imposes constraints on Body....


  

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by gsergiu
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/112#issuecomment-165778807
 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 18 December 2015 13:28:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:43 UTC