- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:31:14 -0700
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Added it in explicitly as a forward (cross?) reference from Style to Multiplicity, and gave it as a second example use case for oa:List. Thanks! Rob On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > On 2/4/13 5:28 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Antoine Isaac<aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: >> >>> Let's try again. The case I have in mind is >>> >>> <ann> a oa:Annotation ; >>> oa:hasBody<body1> ; >>> oa:hasBody<body2> . >>> <body1> oa:styleClass "important" . >>> <body2> oa:styleClass "emphasis" . >>> >>> No multiplicity involved here. But "important" and "emphasis" are defined >>> in >>> *two different styles*. Say,<style1> and<style2>. >>> >>> Attaching both styles at the level of the annotation is possible: >>> <ann> a oa:Annotation ; >>> oa:styledBy<style1> ; >>> oa:styledBy<style2> . >> >> >> This is where the multiplicity comes in. oa:styledBy currently says: >> "The relationship between an Annotation and the oa:Style. >> There MAY be 0 or 1 styledBy relationships for each Annotation." >> >> So hence you would need<ann> oa:styledBy<List> ;<List> oa:item >> <style1>,<style2> >> Then you would know which style had precedence due to the order of the >> list. >> >> >>> But then I'm unclear how a data consumer would know which is the style >>> that >>> corresponds to each class. They could inspect the styles and see whether >>> there's a corresponding class in it. But this could have issues (e.g. two >>> styles defining a same class but with different stylings). >> >> >> Yes, this is what I meant by the styles having conflicting class >> definitions. >> >> >>> And of course Stian's suggestion that<anno> could have some other >>> property, >>> with a value that would be styled according to a third style, would make >>> the >>> picture even more confusing. >>> Or is it just the case that such mind-boggling situations are *not >>> allowed* >>> in OA? >> >> >> Currently they're not allowed, unless you profess to know what you're >> doing by using a multiplicity construct :) > > > > > OK! I suppose this fully alleviates my concerns. I had missed the list thing > in the doc (is it there?). It seems a good solution... > > Antoine >
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 21:31:40 UTC