Re: CFC: Basic Roles Proposal

Hi Doug,

Perhaps Rob can correct me if I'm misremembering but, having the motivation
at the level of annotation was how we avoided this semantic conundrum.

Now we simply have nothing to tell them. That we can motivations on targets
is the price we pay for the functionality that they want (essentially using
annotations as bags of annotations). I expect it be such a seldomly
exercised use case that collapses very easily into a multiplicity structure
that we won't have to remark upon it at all.

Regards,

Jacob


On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>