W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > November 2015

Re: [web-annotation] Justify each Motivation with a behavior

From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 16:17:12 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-158659529-1448122632-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

> On 20 Nov 2015, at 19:43, Jacob <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> -1
> We discussed this kind of normative work with @tilgovi 
<https://github.com/tilgovi> at length back in October. The primary 
problem that I can see is producing the requisite user warrant to 
adequately interpret each motivation in a consistent way. Some of the 
motivations are so vague we have no way to determine if they are the 
same or different (e.g., What is the difference between commenting and
 replying? Why say 'commenting' instead of 'remarking'?).
> This will also inevitably cause collisions when other communities 
extend with their own motivations.
> I am sympathetic to your goal though. Good ontologies require that 
both the writers and the software agents make certain ontological 
commitments which then shape behavior. One of the problems with our 
work here (and work all across the W3C from what I can see) is that we
 avoid commitments like the plague. Which of course begs the questions
 of what we expect servers to do with annotations and how can be 
possibly build a useful API is the goalposts are obfuscated behind 
waving hands.
> Nevertheless, developing normative behavior based on motivations 
isn't a good idea. However, we might reexamine an alternative approach
 that was suggested by Bob (and Phil) Morris (not related) 
specifically for the editing use case years ago. You won't like it 
though. It makes a complex model even more complex.

Although your comment was for @shepazu, I would not like it either;-) 
Exactly for the reason you quote: let us not add an extra complication
 to the model...

> Bob's (and Phil Morris's) suggestion was an additional property on 
annotation called "expectation" that worked in conjunction with 
motivation by specifying what kind of behavior the user expected to be
 taken. (E.g., execute my edit.) We could "normalize" the behavior of 
motivations by using this one-two combination of motivation and 
expectation (which roughly interprets to 'by A I mean do B'). This is 
a really ugly solution (and was voted down almost instantly by the 
community group) but it does sidestep the user warrant problem for 
interpreting motivations.
> 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 <mailto:jjett2@illinois.edu>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub 

GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at 
 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 21 November 2015 16:17:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:42 UTC