Re: More role-related potential changes to Web Annotation Data Model

Tim (and Jacob and Rob)

Thanks a lot for this. This type of example collection is the best way to make informed, or at least reasonably informed, decisions…

Overall, in all your examples I found what you called 'Proposal 2' as providing a simpler solution for the end user. I would definitely vote for that direction but, pragmatically, I am perfectly fine if we decide to postpone at least part of that decision to allow Rob & Paolo to come with a next release of the model document.

That being said, I believe that 'Proposal 2' has, actually, two major aspects that we may want to look at independently, namely:

2.a: Using the (new) oa:EmbeddedTextualBody class as part of the range of oa:hasBody and the domain of oa:hasRole
2.b: Instances of Choice, Composite and List (or corresponding new subclasses) would be allowed as Bodies or Targets

First of all, I believe these two features are not interrelated. Ie, we could (I do not say we should, but we could) decide in favour of 2.a but against 2.b. There is no reason to lump them together.

Furthermore, there is a difference between 2.a and 2.b as for their 'readiness'. I personally think 2.a is almost a no brainer in the sense that, in all examples, it leads to a simpler structure (both in Turtle and in JSON) while I do not see any downside to it; I would actually prefer if we included this in the document-to-be-written. On the other hand, as the document rightfully says, there are several sub-choices to be made for 2.b which should require further discussion. (I must admit I do not have any clear idea in my mind decisions to take for those.) Ie, again to move ahead, it would probably be better if the new draft flagged those questions for now, while still picking one alternative to make the document consistent, and we would try to decide this once the document is out (eg, at TPAC).

One more minor thing: in example 3.1.2 both with Proposals 1 and 2, according to the description, the following is also valid as an alternative to the third example (ie, when no role is needed):

{
  "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld",
   ...
  "body": "I love this thing"
}

I think this should also be listed to make the situation clear and to avoid misunderstandings.

Thanks again for this!

Cheers

Ivan


> On 24 Sep 2015, at 23:18 , Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu> wrote:
> 
> A new discussion document is up on GitHub:
>    http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/RequireSpecificResource.html <http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/RequireSpecificResource.html>
> 
> This a companion to the roles.html and AnnoLevelMotive.html documents in same folder.  Comments, corrections, etc. all welcome.  We followed a table of contents based on roles.html document, but if augmentation with additional use cases is needed, feel free (just don't delete or renumber any of the existing items in Table of Contents Section 3).
> 
> Issue addressed by this new document:
> You will recall that earlier this month the WG reached a consensus to use a new property, oa:hasRole, for expressing roles of oa:SpecificResources serving as Annotation Body or Target.  But a couple of issues summarized in Section 3.2 of the roles.html [1] document were not formally resolved, specifically, the 'further considerations' discussed in:
> 
> ·         3.2.1 Require the use of SpecificResource for Bodies
> ·         3.2.2 Require the use of SpecificResource for Targets
> ·         3.2.3 Allow hasRole on new EmbeddedTextualBody class
> 
> This new document captures some of the discussions we had around these further considerations and illustrates (through 30 examples, each in JSON-LD and Turtle) some of the implications of our options with regard to these 'further considerations' and with regard to how role might interact with multiplicity classes (probably an edge case).
> 
> At this point, Paolo and Rob are already working on the next update of the Web Annotation Data Model, so it'll be up to them and Frederick whether to revisit these further considerations now or wait until after the next iteration of the Data Model is ready, or at least until TPAC. It may be that the discussions the WG has already had and the process of updating the model will clarify things to such a degree that we don't need to revisit these issues during one of our upcoming calls/meetings – in which case the new page will just help complete the documentation of the hasRole discussion we had over the summer. But if more guidance from the WG on these further considerations is needed at this time, the page is available to facilitate that discussion.
> 
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/roles.html#further-considerations <http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/roles.html#further-considerations>
> 
> Thanks,
> Tim Cole


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704