- From: Rob Sanderson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:51:45 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
-1 for several reasons. Technically it is incorrect. A Motivation is an instance of a class, it is not a predicate. Thus inferring that a motivation is a predicate would be simply wrong. If we wanted to go that route, we would simply put that exact triple in the annotation: body motivation target Further, we tried to do this in the past by having a predicate associated with the annotation, and the feedback was that it was both strange to have a non metadata reference to a predicate and did not meet the needs of the people that wanted it, as with the cardinality of body and target, it might be impossible (no body), or wrong (multiple heterogeneous bodies or targets) Further, the actual inference logic even if it was reasonable, would be significantly more complex than that. It would need to take into account the intended semantics of the motivation (a comment body on an annotation with motivation highlighting does not highlight the target) and the existence of hasRole on the various resources. >From a principles standpoint, we have tried hard to explicitly not talk about RDF related features and functionality in the model document to the point taking out "ontology" and other similar words. To start in the introduction to talk about reasoners and inferencing is completely counter to that stated principle. We have #24 which even goes so far as to state the opposite of this proposal. And editorially, introducing a somewhat normative statement in a note in the introduction before any of the concepts are described is just not the right solution, even if we were to accept that this is a real issue, against all previous discussion. -- GitHub Notif of comment by azaroth42 See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/98#issuecomment-153770875
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 15:51:47 UTC