Re: CFC: Basic Roles Proposal

I agree with Rob that we shouldn't get caught up at this junction but you
have a point Ray.

That said, the two targets look to me suspiciously like a single composite
target, in which case the "comparing" motivation would be a property of the
composite target node and "anteceding" / "succeeding" would be the
motivations of the nodes that comprise the composite. From that
perspective, no motivation for the annotation node would be needed.

Discussion of whether or not the content-bearing / identifying nodes buried
within the hierarchical structures of multiplicity objects should be
allowed to have motivations likely needs to happen after we resolve things
at the body / target level.


_____________________________________________________
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 Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:

> Hi Doug;
>
> From: Doug Schepers [mailto:schepers@w3.org]
> > I don't think there's any meaningful difference between an annotator's
> > motivation in creating a particular body or target, and the functional
> role that
> > body or target plays.
>
> So in the example I cited, (3.1.7)  there are three roles (1) comparing
> (2)  antecedent (3)  subsequent.
>
> The intent of the annotation is to "compare" two passages. I would say the
> annotation is motivated by "comparing".
>
> The comparison is "The first passage is a clear derivative of the
> second".    The roles on the two target resources support the comparison by
> indicating which is the first and which is the second.   I would say those
> are the roles that those two resources play in the comparison.
>
> Do you really not think there is a meaningful distinction?
>
> Ray
>
>