Re: [model] Proposal: Allow motivatedBy on SpecificResource

Correct, and apologies for not being clear. To be explicit ... the
cardinality of oa:hasBody would be 0..1 not the current 0..many.

This would be a return to the beta OAC model, rather than the changes made
in the CG. http://www.openannotation.org/spec/beta/

So I'd be particularly interested in Paolo's view on this, and others who
were in the CG for the discussions but not from the OAC background

Rob

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu> wrote:

> To be clear, you are not (I hope) suggesting doing away with multiple
> bodies when within oa:Choice, oa:Composite or oa:List.  Section 5 of the
> model, e.g., Figure 28.
>
>
>
> The use cases that inspired these constructs – e.g., the same comment in
> multiple languages or in multiple formats – do not suffer from the mixed
> motivation issue. Have their own issues, but I feel like we’ve mostly dealt
> with these.
>
>
>
> -Tim Cole
>
>
>
> *From:* jgjett@gmail.com [mailto:jgjett@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Jacob
> Jett
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2015 11:21 AM
> *To:* Robert Sanderson
> *Cc:* Web Annotation
> *Subject:* Re: [model] Proposal: Allow motivatedBy on SpecificResource
>
>
>
> +1 for multiple annotations in the tag(s) + comment and edit + comment
> cases.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>
> Jacob Jett
> Research Assistant
> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
> (217) 244-2164
> jjett2@illinois.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>



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