Re: CFC: Basic Roles Proposal

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>
>> Rob – My thoughts on 3.1 really have to do with  the question I asked
>> yesterday.  It seems to me that we do not have a clear understanding of the
>> distinction between a motivation and role.
>>
>
To try and provide some spec-like text, assuming that motivations are only
allowed on SpecificResources:

A motivation is a resource that identifies the intent behind the inclusion
of the source resource in the annotation.



None of the examples in 3.1 shows a motivation and of course that’s because
>> it’s about roles.  But I think there should be examples that show both a
>> motivation and one or more roles so we can better understand the semantic
>> relationship.
>>
>
Except that as per 3.2.5, we might want to remove motivation from
annotation completely.  Hence I left them off the examples.  Also the
motivation on the Annotation would just be the set of motivations on the
specific resources.





>  For example in 3.1.7 there are three roles (1) comparing (2) antecedent
>> (3)  subsequent
>>
>> Clearly “comparing” is semantically the same as a motivation and
>> “antecedent” and “subsequent” are not.  So the annotation would have the
>> same meaning if “comparing” were to be listed as the motivation with no
>> role assigned to the body.
>>
>
I couldn't come up with a gerund for antecedent and subsequent :)  But the
usage is the same -- the intent of the inclusion of the first target is
that it is the thing being compared to the second target.  It's not a great
example, I know, and would be happy to replace it with something else.



>   When this whole business came up (motivations on individual bodies) it
>> was to support the ability to, in a sense, combine a lot of annotations
>> into a single annotation, for efficiency.  I think that idea was rejected,
>> but the idea morphed into the ability for  bodies to have “roles” in
>> support of the (annotation-level) motivation.   Is this an accurate
>> characterization?
>>
>
It's to provide more information on a per-body level, in the same spirit as
Motivation does for single body annotations (and Tag/SemanticTag classes do
in a hacky way for tags).



Take 3.1.1 for example.  The role is “commenting”.  That could be expressed
>> with commenting as the motivation, with no role on the body.   I’m afraid
>> that when people read this they are going to wonder what is the semantic
>> difference between these two annotations, when there is none.
>>
>
Indeed! And hence I support 3.2.5 (though it should be split up to avoid
conflating the renaming with removing motivation from the annotation)


>    So I would say, for one thing, if there is only one body, it should
>> not have a role, but that role should instead be expressed as a motivation.
>> I would say further that there should be no roles expressed unless there is
>> an annotation-level motivation that the roles support.
>>
>
> I think this highlights the confusion that having both annotation and body
> level motivation/roles is bound to create. It's quite likely that if we put
> these in both places, there could be conflict: an annotation marked as
> "editing" with bodies for "replying", "tagging", and "highlighting."
>
We'd end up with scenarios where we'll need to enforce (somehow) which
> bodies are available when the annotation uses a certain motivation--which
> trends us back towards classes of annotations...which I think has been
> dropped as an option a few times.
>

Yes.  But regardless, none of the above is about the changes in section
3.1.  3.1 is intentionally silent about all of the changes in 3.2, and I
tried to be as minimal in the examples as possible (causing some confusion,
apologies, re language and format) to highlight only the role aspect.

R


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305