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

Re: F2F Decision: Multiple Resources - questionable example?

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:39:42 +0100
Message-ID: <509297BE.3040205@few.vu.nl>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Rob,

Hmm, first I thought they were good examples, but on a second look I have some doubts.

If the Choice is the body, then I'm not confortable with annotate a given resource with "images that depict the same thing". I mean, I see scenarios where this could happen, but I suppose examples in the documentation should seek to be as intuitive as possible for the reader. (Understanding Choice Set and multiple targets/bodies won't be easy already.)

If the Choice is the target, then depending on the "nature" of the annotation some examples may not work out so well, intuitively.
E.g. if I want to say that "images that depict the same thing" (as target) are describing say, a monk (body) then I'd want to use a Set (or multiple targets, see the discussion in the other thread), not a Choice.


> * Resources that have different metadata, as you say. Everyone likes to be credited where credit is due, so I don't think that his makes things much more complex.
>

Not much more complex, indeed. But every non-necessary triple you put in your examples counts.

Antoine


>
> Some other examples of Choices:
>
> * The choice between equivalent PDFs. eg a personal copy, a dx.doi.org <http://dx.doi.org> paywalled copy, a copy in arXiv, and a copy in an institutional repository.
>
> * The choice between images that depict the same thing, just with different lighting conditions. Eg multi-spectral imaging of medieval manuscripts.
>
> * Resources that have different metadata, as you say. Everyone likes to be credited where credit is due, so I don't think that his makes things much more complex. Also, this comes close to simply being a literal body, which we don't allow for many reasons as per the FAQ.
>
> * Choice between the same content in different formats: PDF, Word, Plain text, RDF -- each of which is better for some particular client
>
> Put in Library/Information Science terms, it works around the FRBR problem by flattening everything to Items rather than requiring a reference to a Work and then traversing the tree to find an appropriate Item.
>
>
> Rob
>
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 15:40:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 November 2012 15:40:11 GMT