Re: CFC: Basic Roles Proposal

Ray,

The original scenario, iirc, was the copy edit use case where one would
provide an edit, a comment about that edit, and possibly some tags, links,
etc supporting the proposed edit.

In the FPWD model, that would be several annotations (possibly even
annotating each other).

I'll not speak to how this fixes all or any of that as the wires are far
too tangled for me to untangle at this point.

However, that (iirc) is how this all began.

Cheers,
Benjamin
--
Developer Advocate
http://hypothes.is/

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:

> This discussion, and in particular the “sematic conundrum” that Doug
> describes and that Jacob cites, takes me back to a basic question:  What is
> (or was) the original business case for multiple bodies?
>
> Was it:
>
> (a)    To be able to bundle many independent and otherwise separate
> annotation into a single annotation, for efficiency; or
>
> (b)   To be able to express relationships among several bodies working
> together (i.e. playing different roles) for a single annotation.
>
>
>
> I honestly don’t recall whether or not we actually singled out one or the
> other and I know both were discussed.
>
>
>
> I think we have to bite the bullet and say we can’t have both.
>
>
>
> So Rob, you said that the example I cited is “purely hypothetical”.  Do
> you mean by that that it is invalid?  (In which case it should be
> removed.)  That would mean you think that the answer is (a) and (b) is
> disallowed.
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> *From:* Jacob Jett [mailto:jgjett@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 01, 2015 1:38 PM
> *To:* Doug Schepers
> *Cc:* Robert Sanderson; Benjamin Young; Denenberg, Ray; Web Annotation
> *Subject:* 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
>
>
>