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

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