- From: Jacob via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 16:21:03 +0000
- To: public-annotation@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