- From: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:30:30 -0400
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: "Denenberg, Ray" <rden@loc.gov>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
see inline > On Sep 1, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > > Hi, Ray– > > On 9/1/15 1:04 PM, Denenberg, Ray 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? > > You raise a good point. > > I suggest that the problem lies not in a meaningful distinction between "motivation" and "role", but arises because Rob's example extends the "comparing" motive, giving it an implicit structure, where the "antecedent" and "subsequent" motives have a sub-relationship to "comparing" (which is another formulation of the extension problem Rob was talking about). Another UA that encountered those custom motives wouldn't know about this implicit relationship, or what to do with it. > > To complicate it further, it's easy to imagine that there are additional bodies on the same annotation, including motives like "highlighting", "tagging", "commenting", "questioning" or so on. Do all of these similarly have a sub-relationship to the "comparing" motive of the root Annotation? > > How can this be resolved, while preserving the model and allowing for natural extensions? > > One way I could see that is compatible with my characterization of Rob's proposal would be to have the "comparing" motive on a body that explains the comparison, while the "antecedent" and "subsequent" motives are on the targets. Different UAs need no special knowledge to process such structures normally, or even to display the motives to users; UAs that understand the extensions can process it the same way but infer something a bit more than a generic UA would. > > This feels clean to me. How does it strike you? this seems really clear and logical, simple and within the model we have. Any reason this does not make sense to any one? > > Regards– > –Doug > > regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Co-Chair, W3C Web Annotation WG www.fjhirsch.com @fjhirsch
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2015 01:31:09 UTC