Re: [model] Proposal: Allow motivatedBy on SpecificResource

Tim, all,

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu> wrote:

> In my mind, allowing body-level motivations, at least for the use cases so
> far proposed, is simply a way to conflate what should be separate
> annotation graphs.
>



> For example, should the protocol have a way of allowing posting of
> multiple (related or chained) annotations in a single transaction? (Does it
> already?)
>

It does not.  LDP does not have a notion of transactions at all.  And (as
you know) we don't have a notion of sets/lists of annotations beyond the
unordered containership.


> Anyway, I don’t want to flog a dead horse, but since Doug asked directly
> about slippery slopes, I did want to elaborate on the trouble we might get
> ourselves into if we allow multiple bodies that relate to multiple targets
> and to each other in substantively different ways.  I still do think there
> is a slippery slope potential here.
>

This seems like a good opportunity to re-evaluate multiple bodies as a
feature at all.  To my knowledge, all multiple body use cases have been for
different motivations.  Most frequently it has been comment plus tags that
are all really about the same target.  If we went to a multiple annotation
model for edit + comment, we could more reliably also go to a multiple
annotation model for tag(s) + comment as well.  Then the individual
annotations could be addressed individually, for example to moderate a tag
without at the same time moderating the comment, or vice versa.

Rob

-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305