- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:48:51 -0600
- To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
The current document says that subclasses of oa:Annotation express the "reasons why the annotation was created". It was expressed that this is not actually possible, as we are introducing additional semantics to the meaning of rdf:type. The consensus was as follows: - Every annotation MUST have an explicit class of oa:Annotation, regardless of any other classes This is in order to make sure that the annotations are recognized as oa:Annotations to ensure interoperability. - SubClasses of oa:Annotation should be introduced primarily to further restrict the data model, and may be introduced by any one. For example a xxx:Highlight subClass might restrict the model that there should be exactly one target and no body. - Existing subclasses will be mapped to a new type of resource, an oa:Motivation, and referenced by a new predicate from the Annotation: oa:motivatedBy For example, instead of an oax:Hightlight, one would have: _:x a oa:Annotation ; oa:motivatedBy oax:Highlighting ; oa:hasBody <body1> ; oa:hasTarget <target1> . (Mapping to be provided) - We will not introduce oa:Expectation (the producers expectation of what a consumer of the annotation will do), as all of the examples were specific to individual network transactions. Two examples were discussed: * A change request, where the expectation is that the consumer will act upon it. This is only a valid expectation for transactions between a client and an agent capable of performing the change. As such it does not belong in an interoperability specification, but can be added in by systems capable of accepting/creating the change. * The expectation that the server will generate an alert based on the social network of the annotator. This is only desirable for the initial creation of the annotation, not any subsequent harvesting and reuse. So this also is only a valid expectation of the initial transaction between a client and server, rather than a persistent property of the annotation. Thanks, Rob & Paolo
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 16:49:20 UTC