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

@tilgovi if we add a note or appendix or some such that explains the 
"just RDF" approach (as expressed in @azaroth42's `foaf:depicts` 
example), do you feel that sufficiently addresses your concern?

I agree with @azaroth42 and @jjett that turning `motivations` into 
something they're not (or trying to re-specify them into something 
"more") would really be wheel reinvention (we already have RDF that 
does this) and actually limit the value of the intentional vagueness 
of motivation (as currently specified)--which (to me at least) is more
 about "signaling" usage vs. defining a thing categorically (or in RDF
 terms "classifying").

Given that we can simply add ad hoc triples into the graph via JSON-LD
 constructs, I feel the use cases are all best served with our current
 approach:
 - use `motivations` to signal what this body MAY be used for along 
side the target
 - use RDF to further specify relationship between any part of the 
graph--typically between `body` and `target` and/or the annotation and
 either of them

Thoughts?

-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by BigBlueHat
See 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/98#issuecomment-153831097

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 19:00:36 UTC