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

Re: F2F Decision: Multiple Resources

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:33:17 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUHbUyhjVqmkwSK1b9ZdWEn9UNqtcP4rz0R0H5VJD2_cdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>, public-openannotation@w3.org
The XOR or Choice is to select one and only one of the resources.  For
example, if there are three translations of the same comment, a system
should display only one of them as appropriate for the user's
preferences (and potentially allow the user to se the other options).
On the other hand, given an oa:Set of three comments, all three should
be displayed.

Hope that helps,


On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Leyla Jael García Castro
<leylajael@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> Do you have a use case for the ao:XOR? Not so sure whether I understand it.
> Cheers,
> Leyla
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:16 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 Monday, 29 October 2012 15:33:49 UTC

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