Re 2: More role-related potential changes to Web Annotation Data Model

Having looked at the text again, I question came to my mind. Let us suppose we go with Proposal 2. What that entails is to define a subclass of EmbeddedContent called EmbeddedTextualBody. However… the current OA draft specifies oa:EmbeddedContent in a section entitled "Embedded Textual Body"[1] and the class is used only to 'qualify' texts with media types or languages, etc. Why would we need a separate oa:EmbeddedTextualBody? Why isn't it simply enough to have and use one class (whether its name is EmbeddedContent or EmbeddedTextualBody is besides the point)?

Ivan



[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-annotation-model-20141211/#embedded-textual-body <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-annotation-model-20141211/#embedded-textual-body>



> 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