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

Re: F2F Decision: Multiple Resources

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:18:37 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUGTM2C9dAUhg_ON_+hj4UEKz2SroyaxRaff3qQL8djJgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
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.

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.


On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Bob Morris <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
> 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 Wednesday, 24 October 2012 15:19:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:02 UTC