W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Annotation Concept vs Document (was Level 1 comments)

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:45:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUGMk0dM-QW4DGUeiyEQGQ1FmwAVwAWi+1vrdhcNBEGVxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> On 1/9/13 6:05 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

>>     Side question: I'd be curious to hear whether
>>     oa:Annotation rdfs:subClassOf ore:Aggregation
>>     holds for you (for me it does!)
>>
>> We tried that in OAC, you may not be surprised to hear. It ... was not
>> well received.
>> See: http://www.openannotation.org/spec/alpha2/#DM_Baseline and compare to
>> /alpha and /beta
>
> Well, if you already had this view that annotations are serialization, it's
> not a surprise that a mapping to ore:Aggregation (which are rather abstract
> beasts) has been not well received!

No, it was the following issues:

* The assumption was that if Annotation == Aggregation, then the
bodies and targets are the aggregated resources.
* The ORE docs say that non resolvable URIs cannot be aggregated.
This kills any UUID or blank node resource as an aggregated resource.
* The Proxy construction for talking about the
resource-in-the-context-of-the-Annotation was not especially liked.
This would be the equivalent of a Specific Resource that we have now.
* The mandatory separation of Annotation/Aggregation and
(serialization)/ResourceMap

Rob
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 20:46:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 January 2013 20:46:01 GMT