Over the past decade, we’ve evolved a number of overlapping / redundant concepts, all of which are related to a central concept, which I’ll call a highlight, which roughly corresponds to what the W3C Annotation Data Model calls a segment (link).
In particular, I’m trying to figure out how to communicate the difference between two different modalities for references to distinguish between when they have been have been created as elements within a resource (e.g. by an author) and annotations which have been created on top of a resource (e.g. by a reader / reviewer).
Currently, my plan is to differentiate these via their “action verbs” (insert and tag) so that users can “Insert References” into resources they can edit, but must “Tag References” on top of resources that they cannot edit (e.g. resources that have been integrated from a third-party source system a la Wikipedia).
As an additional complication, references within a document can be rendered in three ways: as an inline data object, as a hyperlink anchored on a highlight of text or as a preview showing a “card” of the data being embedded - examples below:
There are a number of other related concepts involved, but I’m most interested in advice about whether having ‘adjective-adjusted’ concepts is a best practice, or whether there’s a better way to express the distinction between a tagged “highlight” and an embedded “element.” I’ve attached a preliminary concept map below, with user-facing concepts highlighted in blue.