- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 23:07:01 +0100
- To: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On 2/4/13 7:08 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > Hi Bob, > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Bob Morris<morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote: > >> <anno1> a oa:Annotation; >> oa:motivatedBy oa:editing; >> oa:motivatedBy fp:authorityConformance a oa:Motivation >> [fp:conformsTo<http://authority.org/fp/theRuleset#Rule1> ] ; > >> The first motivation is meant to convey that a change to the Target is >> proposed in the Body. The second is meant to be an assertion that the >> annotator believes the edit will bring the the Target into compliance >> with an authority, and that is another reason the Annotation is >> offered. > >> 1. Is this a reasonable use of oa:motivatedBy and > > I believe so, because it clarifies the reason the Annotation was > created. It's an edit ... that will bring the target into compliance. > To me that fits exactly the role that Motivations are intended to provide. > > >> 2. (less important at this point) Is authorityConformance of >> sufficient interest to be added to the list of oa:Motivation >> instances? > > I think it's too specific, personally, for the spec. But a list > (cough registry) of Motivations would be a great thing to have to > reduce the number of duplicates. > >> p.s. "Anything can be a motivation." is not an entirely satisfactory >> answer to 1. :-) > > :) +1 to all of this. For the record in the DL community I would think of http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-conformsTo for the fp:conformsTo property. For fp:authorityConformance there might be something in other vocabularies (CIDOC-CRM perhaps), but I won't have the time to dig it up. Antoine
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 22:07:36 UTC