Re: CFC: Basic Roles Proposal

Hi Rob,

I just noticed that the turtle for example #14 (multiple bodies) is missing
a hasSource property / value pair for the target (which features
selectors). A couple of quick other thoughts inline below.


On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>
+1 for leaving motivation off of annotation. I think it makes more sense to
capture the motivations for why each of the bodies is present (i.e., how
does it relate to the target).


>
>
>
>>  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.
>
>
Total aside but you could use anteceding and succeeding. :)


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

<snip>