Re: CFC: Basic Roles Proposal

Hi, Rob–

FWIW, I decided it would be best to recuse myself from decisions on this 
topic.

But as Frederick noted, we should only be using voting as a last resort, 
not a normal part of our decision making process.

When we gauge support in the informal process of CfCs and such, we 
normally consider that a strawpoll, not a binding vote; in strawpolls, 
every WG participant, no matter their organization, is typically allowed 
to state their preference.


(In general, formal votes are a bad idea, and I've only seen them used 
in the most dysfunctional WGs, like the HTML WG.)

Regards–
–Doug

On 9/1/15 9:11 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <tel:%28217%29%20244-2164>
>      > jjett2@illinois.edu <mailto:jjett2@illinois.edu>
>      >
>      > On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Robert Sanderson
>     <azaroth42@gmail.com <mailto: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

Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2015 01:45:54 UTC