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

Re: [web-annotation] Allow >1 role per resource

From: BigBlueHat via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:38:43 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-158953502-1448289523-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Here's the current list of specified Motivation (and therefor Role) 
- bookmarking
- classifying
- commenting
- describing
- editing
- highlighting
- identifying
- linking
- moderating
- questioning
- replying
- reviewing
- tagging

Here's an example of using just these to do a common thing using 
multi-roles on bodies:

  "type": "Annotation",
  "motivation": "bookmarking",
  "target": "http://w3.org/",
  "body": [
      "role": ["tagging", "identifying"],
      "text": "W3C"
      "role": ["tagging", "classifying"],
      "text": "homepage"
      "role": ["commenting", "describing"],
      "text": "The home page of the World Wide Web Consortium"
      "role": ["commenting", "reviewing"],
      "text": "Fabulous! Would spec here again!!1!"

These could all be made via a form not dissimilar to Hypothes.is form,
 but with the ability to add multiple inputs where I could also 
"explain" (by picking a motivation) what this additional field might 
be about / for.

If we constrained the `role` field to a single value, then I've no way
 of understanding what I'm getting in the value of `text` nor what 
it's intended use to others might be (`reviewing`, `describing`, 

If we constrain it's use to a single value, then the expectation 
becomes that these values are actually "types", but that's clearly not
 what's being provided here--nor should it be.

The main reason we have `Motivation` at all (vs. types, "hard" RDF 
classes, etc). is that it's hard to know when something's 
"displacing"--and stating that "for the world" isn't going to make us 
any friends--given that I can obviously be `describing` (or 
`reviewing` or `editing` etc) a resource with a tag, a comment, a 
highlight, an image, etc.

Hopefully the above example JSON points to a(nother) valid use case 
and scenario that could be implemented (with relative ease) consumed 
with some confidence, and make meaningful value of multiple 
`role`s--where the inverse (having only 1 `role`) would be confusing, 
less valuable, and ultimately damaging to the use of a thing called 
Web Annotation.

GitHub Notification of comment by BigBlueHat
Please view or discuss this issue at 
 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 23 November 2015 14:38:45 UTC

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