{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/web-annotation/issues/101","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/web-annotation/issues/101/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/web-annotation/issues/101/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/web-annotation/issues/101/events","html_url":"https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/101","id":115148336,"number":101,"title":"Do we need an `annotates` relationship for use in RDF and/or Link Relationships?","user":{"login":"BigBlueHat","id":43209,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/43209?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat","html_url":"https://github.com/BigBlueHat","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2015-11-04T21:09:05Z","updated_at":"2015-11-05T17:20:36Z","closed_at":null,"body":"We can currently express relationships (even vague ones) within an Annotation (see https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/98#issuecomment-153831097 ).\r\n\r\nHowever, we still do not have (for better or worse) the ability to state `body annotates target`. We have instead `annotation hasBody body; annotation hasTarget target`.\r\n\r\nShould we define an `annotates` relationship?\r\n\r\nOr (perhaps) a link relationship that could be used with either an annotation or a body?\r\n\r\n```http\r\nGET /blog-post/comment-1\r\n```\r\n\r\n```http\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\nLink: </blog-post>; rel=\"annotates\"\r\n```\r\n\r\nThat scenario done now would look like:\r\n```http\r\nGET /blog-post/comment-1\r\n```\r\n\r\n```http\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\nLink: </blog-post>; rel=\"http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#hasTarget\"\r\n```\r\n\r\nObviously, if we specified `annotates` in the [link relation registry](http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml), we'd also (likely) want to specify the reverse relationship for us in the more common scenario of linking from a blog post to any known comments.\r\n\r\nHere are the existing link relationship values that come pretty close (but are more specific):\r\n - [bookmark](http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-bookmark) -- specific to bookmarking\r\n - [describes](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6892) -- description only\r\n - [describedby](http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-powder-dr-20090901/#semlink) -- same as above; just points the other way\r\n - [replies](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4685#section-4) -- would only work for a direct reply\r\n\r\nand...historically (though not part of the registry...yet?)\r\n - [annotation](http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iiir-html-00) -- ...you'll have to search for it...[or see it highlighted](https://via.hypothes.is/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iiir-html-00)"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/web-annotation/issues/comments/154127653","html_url":"https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/101#issuecomment-154127653","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/web-annotation/issues/101","id":154127653,"user":{"login":"BigBlueHat","id":43209,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/43209?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat","html_url":"https://github.com/BigBlueHat","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/BigBlueHat/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-11-05T17:20:36Z","updated_at":"2015-11-05T17:20:36Z","body":"Annotation (to me at least) boils down to \"the expectation of contextual display.\"\r\n\r\nMy blog post about your blog post *may* be considered an annotation, or reply, or comment, or review, or whatever, but if I'm explicitly stating that it's an \"annotation\", the *expectation* is that it will be displayed alongside in some way--marginalia, etc.\r\n\r\nHere's what @timbl wrote for the `annotation` link relationship in 1993:\r\n>   ANNOTATION\r\n\r\n> The information in B is additional to and subsidiary to that in A.\r\n\r\n> Annotation is used by one person to write the equivalent of \"margin notes\" or other criticism on another's document, for example.\r\n\r\nThere's a bit more about newsgroups and their articles along with the link be \"acyclic,\" but those uses fall outside of what we're defining at this point, I'd reckon.\r\n\r\nIn RDF-land, it would be the expectation that the \"description\" contained in the triples not be considered canonical or authoritative, but as TimBL put it \"additional to and subsidiary to.\" The author of `A` MAY consider the contents of `B` for eventual inclusion in a canonical graph, but by their expression as an annotation they stay \"outside\" until (and optionally) they are incorporated by the author of `A`--in a similar fashion to the copy-edit use case, etc.\r\n\r\nAll that said, this may fall outside the scope of our charter, and probably be something just done by \"interested parties\" (me...at least...) at the IETF and/or IANA as \"just\" a link relationship. But, since we're doing annotation, I thought I'd bring it up. :wink:"}}