- From: Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:18:29 -0500
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: t-cole3 <t-cole3@illinois.edu>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABzPtB+YsX3Q9EyH7J2vLWniZZh7zJ+Ofb7BB3X0x+-AEFDXvA@mail.gmail.com>
+1 for a sub-class _____________________________________________________ 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 Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: > > Right, it really is Embedded Content. The use for embedding text for the > body is more specific in two dimensions (it must be text, must be object of > hasBody). > > So we can either just allow EmbeddedContent to have hasRole and for it to > be unused for embedding stylesheets and SVG (and any future use), or we can > create a TextBody subClass that has it. I prefer to create a subclass as > then we can also have a more specific and friendly class name. > > Rob > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu> > wrote: > >> I do not have strong opinions about this, and I am going to say this >> poorly (imprecisely), but I think one concern stems from the fact that the >> oa:EmbeddedContent class actually can be used for more than just the range >> of oa:hasBody and oa:hasTarget (the definition of the class given in 3.2.4 >> of the data model probably needs to be improved), e.g., when you want to >> embed an oa:SvgSelector, as illustrated in Example 43 of the current Web >> Annotation Data Model, an instance of oa:EmbeddedContent can be used to >> embed the SVG of your selector as a literal string. When used this way, >> the instance of oa:EmbeddedContent should not have a role property. But if >> you say in your RDFS/OWL ontology that oa:EmbeddedContent is the domain of >> oa:hasRole, there is not a good way to exclude the use of oa:hasRole when >> the instance of oa:EmbeddedContent is the SVG literal of an >> oa:SvgSelector. For inferencing and other Semantic Web reasons, a subclass >> is needed for one or the other use. >> >> >> >> I think this is an issue for inferencing and other Semantic Web use >> cases, but you probably have a better sense about this than me. >> >> >> >> -Tim Cole >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] >> *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2015 5:30 AM >> *To:* Tim Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu> >> *Cc:* W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org> >> *Subject:* 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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.w3.org_TR_2014_WD-2Dannotation-2Dmodel-2D20141211_-23embedded-2Dtextual-2Dbody&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=zjI0r-H6xRs5fYf2_jJkju6US9ijk0nLw4ns2nuwU2k&m=WUDld6fwaoxMlFwBF4qSq2-b33eJJFP7OTMPb_w2bQk&s=kHm9dnjVEpcEnYz0DtSvv_avXaR9udWUqFBQYgK7f3Q&e=> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__w3c.github.io_web-2Dannotation_model_wd_RequireSpecificResource.html&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=zjI0r-H6xRs5fYf2_jJkju6US9ijk0nLw4ns2nuwU2k&m=WUDld6fwaoxMlFwBF4qSq2-b33eJJFP7OTMPb_w2bQk&s=j9wZSMVU-5lddfKlgxZcebr-29-BjUhJ_8JZcwVePGw&e=> >> >> >> >> 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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__w3c.github.io_web-2Dannotation_model_wd_roles.html-23further-2Dconsiderations&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=zjI0r-H6xRs5fYf2_jJkju6US9ijk0nLw4ns2nuwU2k&m=WUDld6fwaoxMlFwBF4qSq2-b33eJJFP7OTMPb_w2bQk&s=9KdV7QLdWVQV3YVFQ6W-daLDXY69fmHI69Qxgumsoc4&e=> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tim Cole >> >> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.w3.org_People_Ivan_&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=zjI0r-H6xRs5fYf2_jJkju6US9ijk0nLw4ns2nuwU2k&m=WUDld6fwaoxMlFwBF4qSq2-b33eJJFP7OTMPb_w2bQk&s=Fn48WqzQ3IqNHGOGHkOmPt98Mv_-dCnkaKpgoY9EU6Q&e=> >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__orcid.org_0000-2D0003-2D0782-2D2704&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=zjI0r-H6xRs5fYf2_jJkju6US9ijk0nLw4ns2nuwU2k&m=WUDld6fwaoxMlFwBF4qSq2-b33eJJFP7OTMPb_w2bQk&s=YN_OWvB_cLSUbHgUoEk2n8BjcrpO50r16U61gmC3pY8&e=> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Rob Sanderson > Information Standards Advocate > Digital Library Systems and Services > Stanford, CA 94305 >
Received on Monday, 28 September 2015 17:19:38 UTC