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

Re: [web-annotation] Clarify ability to reason with annotations - note additional statements to add to reasoner

From: Jacob via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 16:21:03 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-153781153-1446654062-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I think it'll be difficult to address Randall's concerns about whether
 or
not we can interpret motivation as a relationship between the body and
 the
target. Part of the point I was trying to make is that any 
interpretation
of motivations is necessarily an idiosyncratic one because there is 
not a
broad consensus on what those relationships are or should be.

That said, I noticed a lot of things coming out of TPAC that were 
making
these kind of idiosyncratic interpretations (e.g., division of the 
hasBody
predicate into hasBody and hasTextBody -- this conflates the role of 
body
with the kind of thing that the body is (i.e., resource or literal)). 
This
is not very good RDF but may have value for a number of things such as
serializations and various reasoners (including those using flavors of
 OWL
that are not OWL Full).

I'm -0 on the proposal. I can see the value of body relatedTo target 
(I can
even see body annotates target) but, body motivation target is a 
bridge too
far.

Regards,

Jacob

P.S. I'm about to start quals at the end of the week so I'm afraid 
that I
won't be much help for the next few weeks.


_____________________________________________________
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 Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:57 AM, BigBlueHat <notifications@github.com> 
wrote:

> Good points @azaroth42
> 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_azaroth42&d=BQMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=_A46fJN0FohRFf2PS96i8X3vN-On8iL65L49mQlE67A&s=KGP9taFC9MyQ6RBjeD3yU2MrAsXckRrJWegRGEaSxGU&e=>
> .
>
> Perhaps, then, we can include an Appendix (or some such) in the new 
"model
> only" doc that explains how to explicitly state relationships 
between body
> and target, or (alternatively) highlight that these Annotation 
documents
> aren't intended for that...and to "just use RDF."
>
> I do think Randall's points need addressing somewhere, so that other
> people looking at Annotation and wondering how to (or if to) state 
that
> body and target are related are given a way to do it or an 
explanation of
> why the Annotation doesn't.
>
> Maybe we already do that, and I've just missed it. [image: :smiley:]
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_web-2Dannotation_issues_98-23issuecomment-2D153772869&d=BQMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=_A46fJN0FohRFf2PS96i8X3vN-On8iL65L49mQlE67A&s=wjuvT5_FEQqNdxOX0sUUyHLi_t7qWh53HT-3T3RFTLI&e=>
> .
>


-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by jjett
See 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/98#issuecomment-153781153
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 16:21:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:42 UTC