W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > November 2012

Re: F2F Decision: Multiple Resources - List

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:50:50 +0100
Message-ID: <509237EA.9080206@few.vu.nl>
To: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi all,


>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com <mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Regarding (1), we were waiting for any feedback from the list before
>     writing up a new draft :)
>
>     Currently we don't have collections of annotations as in scope for the
>     current work. That said, we certainly can't prevent oa:Set (etc) from
>     being used with annotations as the object of item, as any resource
>     must be able to be put there.
>
> Fair enough. My reading of the report was over-anxious about the sentence
> "The same classes will be used for Bodies, Targets and Specifiers."
>
>
>     And for (3), the idea was to have a resource that was both an oa:List
>     and an rdf:List. Then if future RDF versions have a better way of
>     dealing with ordering, then we would not lose our own List class, but
>     inherit the new version.
>
> +1 for that plan. My point is that if there is any realistic direction presently seen toward the arrival of that wonderful future, then we should think a little about whether we inadvertently preclude that oa:List easily join that future more-or-less painlessly. \If/ there is already a roadmap to the RDF future for ordering, and \if/ we can understand the relation of oa:List to that putative future, we should at least make our adoption with eyes wide open.


+1. And as for the other issue yesterday, I'd suggest to add a one-sentence note in the editor's draft to indicate that if something convenient comes out of the RDF/SPARQL work in time, the List construct may be revisited. It's always good to dissipate doubts in the mind of a reader that would be aware of all these technical issues.
(please tell me if these suggestions are a no-go from your editorial perspective, I'll stop ;-) )

And there's indeed no painless way to get all list elements in order in one go.

Antoine



>     On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com <mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com>> wrote:
>      > With respect to the Multiple Resources model[1] that emerged in Chicago
>      >
>      > 1. It would be nice if the Issues List reflected what Rob's initial proposal
>      > morphed into, and the discussion continued there. (Rob: I'll have a try if
>      > you want...)
>      >
>      > 2. oa:Set and probably oa:List can profitably be applied to a collection of
>      > oa:Annotations. The use case is actionable annotations that are delivered
>      > to remote agents, and upon which collections of expected actions must
>      > taken, possibly in a prescribed order. This is particularly needed when
>      > actionable annotations will generate response annotations (e.g. "Agent Smart
>      > accepted all of your corrections in the oa:Set :mySet1 except the oa:item
>      > :mySet1.item10."). If a collection of actionable annotations travels in a
>      > disconnected fashion, the annotation publisher can not easily (at all?)
>      > convey that a coordinated action is desired. There may be an argument for
>      > ao:XOR on collections of annotations also. It's likely that none of these
>      > collection types should be restricted to Target, Body, and Specifiers, as is
>      > perhaps being suggested in [1]
>      >
>      > 3. Probably oa:List objects cannot(?) survive being put in a triple store,
>      > since order of identified nodes is not defined in the graph. [2] is a
>      > proposal to address the issue, but it is unclear how much traction it has.
>      > This means that processing order for oa:List will depend on the
>      > serialization, not on the RDF. I vaguely recall this was raised in Chicago,
>      > perhaps tabled for more discussion.
>      >
>      > [1]
>      > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2012Oct/0004.html#start4
>      > [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws14
>      >
>      > Bob Morris
>      >
>      > --
>      > Robert A. Morris
>      >
>      > Emeritus Professor of Computer Science
>      > UMASS-Boston
>      > 100 Morrissey Blvd
>      > Boston, MA 02125-3390
>      >
>      > IT Staff
>      > Filtered Push Project
>      > Harvard University Herbaria
>      > Harvard University
>      >
>      > email: morris.bob@gmail.com <mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com>
>      > web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
>      > web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
>      > http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
>      > ===
>      > The content of this communication is made entirely on my
>      > own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
>      > official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or Harvard
>      > University.
>      >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert A. Morris
>
> Emeritus Professor of Computer Science
> UMASS-Boston
> 100 Morrissey Blvd
> Boston, MA 02125-3390
>
> IT Staff
> Filtered Push Project
> Harvard University Herbaria
> Harvard University
>
> email: morris.bob@gmail.com <mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com>
> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
> web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
> ===
> The content of this communication is made entirely on my
> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or Harvard University.
>
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 08:51:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 November 2012 08:51:20 GMT