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
not we can interpret motivation as a relationship between the body and
target. Part of the point I was trying to make is that any 
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 
these kind of idiosyncratic interpretations (e.g., division of the 
predicate into hasBody and hasTextBody -- this conflates the role of 
with the kind of thing that the body is (i.e., resource or literal)). 
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
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



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

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

> Good points @azaroth42
> .
> Perhaps, then, we can include an Appendix (or some such) in the new 
> only" doc that explains how to explicitly state relationships 
between body
> and target, or (alternatively) highlight that these Annotation 
> 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 
> 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
> .

GitHub Notif of comment by jjett
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