- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:30:48 -0400
- To: Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>, "Denenberg, Ray" <rden@loc.gov>, Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
Hi, Jacob– On 9/1/15 12:52 PM, Jacob Jett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > 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). I like how you put this. I think this is really a key to understanding the model, and a great way to explain it to developers and implementers (and power users, and extenders). * A motive on a body is the way that each body relates to the targets. Does the reverse hold true? I'm not sure which of these is more true: * A motive on a target is the way that each target relates to the bodies. * A motive on a target is the way that each target relates to the annotation. * A motive on a target is the way that each target relates to the bodies and the annotation. Would it depend on the motivation? I'd like to think not. I'm less curious about it a semantic level (though I suspect that's a question you'd like answered), but more at the level of clearly explaining it to the casual developer in a way that sticks. Regards– –Doug
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2015 17:30:53 UTC