On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote: > <StrongOpinion> > Basically, our current need is for data annotation to address > fitness-for-purpose, and my guess is that most people annotating > documents also have that motivation. But it's hard to see how to model > fitness-for-purpose without reference to knowledge representation in > the domain of the Body and Topic. From this perspective, I continue > to believe that Style doesn't belong in an annotation knowledge > representation---I see it as just a tool based on thousands of years > of document production, by which an ao:Annotator is hiding some > fitness-for-use concept that is potentially integrable with someone > else's were it only clearer why the Annotator designated, or cared > about, that style. But, if you are able to, e.g. express that your > red stuff is meant to denote that this part of the document signals > something the consuming agent should somehow care about, why shouldn't > that concern be expressed with something less context sensitive than > "text has red background color". > </StrongOpinion> > > To the extent that my StrongOpinion analysis is shared, it is perhaps > an argument that Style belongs in oax. Apologies if I'm reviving an old thread, but I think this is well argued. Particularly given the fact that no sub-classes of Style are currently in the core, putting it in the extension begins to strike me as reasonable.Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 06:56:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:14 UTC