- From: Jacob via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:12:42 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
You still run into the problem that "A describes B" is only sometimes an annotation and is other times a description. IMO, the main reason we cannot do this is because it is not the case the the set of all descriptions matches or fits within the set of all annotations. At best you could only ever say "A annotates B" OR "A describes B" but never both. Any inference that these have the same semantics is totally idiosyncratic and dependent upon the specific annotator. The way the model is structured now is to say "A annotates B" AND "Annotator mayIntendThat 'A describes B'" (assuming the optional motivatedBy has actually been asserted, otherwise it only claims the first thing, "A annotates B"). I get that there is a search use case that requires this weird kind of searching by intended role of body content but the fact is, at the end of the day, there isn't much evidence to support that we are interpreting those intended roles correctly. Any system that tries to mandate this kind of typing on the user-side is going to be obnoxious to them (because 1) data entry and 2) "doesn't have my choice" (e.g. remarking not commenting)). This kind of search use case isn't very supportable because developers don't actually have warrant from the users to assume their intentions (there are simply too many different, disparate end user communities supported by too many different, disparate developer communities). Motivation is really the best we can do and still have annotations. Regards, Jacob _____________________________________________________ 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 2:49 PM, Randall Leeds <notifications@github.com> wrote: > not wanting to have parallel motivations and relationships > > I'm not suggesting to have them in parallel. I'm suggesting to have > relationships instead. > > It would be redundant to have [role: describing and describes: target] > > Yes. It would be. That's why I'm not suggesting role either. > > I'm suggesting just to have the relationship and questioning the value of > motivation (and role). I am becoming only more convinced that motivation is > intentionally vague and needlessly indirect. Role suffers from the exact > same issues but is more granular, letting us get specific about which > vague, indirect relationship we're avoiding. > > — > 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-2D153860048&d=BQMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=-Z6BucnZO3SD0Dqtc93isJs3-VYFwcz7o2TxLK274QY&s=yHXBuWIUaOQ4aLB2nA-2woT6uiw_mKxDACev695qivM&e=> > . > -- GitHub Notif of comment by jjett See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/98#issuecomment-153866932
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 21:12:45 UTC