Re: CFC: Basic Roles Proposal

Summary of the CfC on Section 3.1 as of 9pm W3C time on 2015-09-01

Rob Sanderson: +1
Frederick Hirsch: +1
Ivan Herman: +1
Ben De Meester: +1
Raphael Troncy: +1
Davis Salisbury: +1
Jacob Jett: +1  (actually "+0.75" after clarification that it only applies
to 3.1)

Kyrce Swenson: "For the purposes of edit/copy-edit; this makes sense, and I
would agree that it appears to be the simplest viable solution."
 -- I think this is a +1 with some reservations?

Stian Soiland-Reyes:  "I am unable to comment on 3.1 in isolation without
knowing what is the (implied or specified) type of the object that has
oa:role."
 -- I think this is abstention?

Other WG participants who have contributed to the discussion but not
registered a position:

Doug Schepers (But from the same organization as Ivan Herman)
Tim Cole (But from the same organization as Jacob Jett)
Benjamin Young
Ray Denenberg

Other non-WG participants who have contributed to the discussion:

Bill Hunt: "we're happy to step out of the way if that helps the rest of
the group reach an amicable solution."
 -- Although non WG members do not actually count towards a CfC, Chris Birk
is an Invited Expert from the same organization, so I'm counting this.
 -- And I think is a -0 (don't like it but could live with it if nothing
better can be agreed on)

Rob


On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote:

> [not as chair]
>
> I agree with this; in addition 'source' is just as intuitive as 'content',
> if not more so, for precisely the reasons Jacob gives.
>
>
> regards, frederick
>
> > On Aug 24, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
> >
> > -1 so long as it contains 3.2.4
> >
> > If 3.2.4 can be removed to a separate issue, then +0.75.
> >
> > I feel like someone has added some tax appropriations for their highway
> to an EPA funding bill. If an issue is not directly related (like the
> proposed hasSource name change) then we should discuss it separately.
> >
> > Some folks are of the opinion that changing to hasContent has no real
> impact on the model but once you start using multiplicity constructs and
> selectors it is no longer clear what was intended to be meant by saying
> hasConstruct. For instance compare:
> >
> > <http://example.org/anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
> >      oa:hasTarget [ oa:hasSelector <http://example.org/selector1> ;
> >                              oa:hasSource <http://example.org/target1>
> ] ;
> >      oa:hasBody [ oa:hasSource <http://example.org/tag1> ] .
> >
> > to
> >
> > <http://example.org/anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
> >      oa:hasTarget [ oa:hasSelector <http://example.org/selector1> ;
> >                              oa:hasContent <http://example.org/target1>
> ] ;
> >      oa:hasBody [ oa:hasContent <http://example.org/tag1> ] .
> >
> >
> > The intended meaning of hasContent is only clear in the simple cases
> when selectors are not being employed (i.e., when the SpecificResource is
> simply a b-node interposed between the annotation node and that actual body
> / target content). This is not the case as soon as we employ Selectors.
> >
> > This will be similarly true for non-trivial multiplicity cases. Consider
> the pattern.
> >
> > <http://example.org/anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
> >     oa:hasTarget <http://example.org/target1> ;
> >     oa:hasBody [
> >         a oa:Choice ;
> >         oa:member [ <http://example.org/body1> ;
> >                              <http://example.org/body2> ] ;
> >     ] .
> >
> > Assuming that oa:Choice is a sub-class of oa:SpecificResource then under
> the suggested regime of 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 it must become
> >
> > <http://example.org/anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
> >     oa:hasTarget <http://example.org/target1> ;
> >     oa:hasBody [
> >         a oa:Choice ;
> >         oa:member [ <http://example.org/body1> ;
> >                              <http://example.org/body2> ] ;
> >        oa:hasSource <???>
> >     ] .
> >
> > I'm not even sure what we'd use for the object of the hasSource /
> hasContent predicate but we have to have one because it's a MUST in the
> draft. The CFC seems a bit premature as it failed to consider all of the
> implications and, this proposal has some very serious implications for
> important portions of the model. While fixing some issues it introduces
> others. An easy solution is to either keep the multiplicity constructs as
> separate (sibling) specific resource types that don't require a hasSource /
> hasContent predicate or to relax the MUST to a MAY or to adopt some rather
> complicated language explaining when hasSource / hasContent SHOULD be used.
> >
> > And of course the objects of oa:member could be Specific Resources
> themselves making an infinite recursion possible...
> >
> > 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
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to update the working group's
> Annotation Model deliverable according to the changes specified in section
> 3.1 of this document:
> >     http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/roles.html
> >
> > Please respond to this CfC by the 1st of September 2015.  Any response
> is valuable, even just a simple +1.  Silence will be considered as
> agreement.  This CfC will complete the process discussed in last week's
> teleconference.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > --
> > Rob Sanderson
> > Information Standards Advocate
> > Digital Library Systems and Services
> > Stanford, CA 94305
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305