Re: In preparation to the F2F: Data Model status

Ah, I see the serialization. So if I just have multiple bodies without an
explicit choice or list I could serialize it as:

{
"@type" : oa:Annotation,
"oa:hasBody" : [body1, body2, body3]
}

Is that correct?

To clarify we would retain the Choice and Composite types so that we can
manage the semantics of the array, is that correct? Or are we considering
jettisoning all of these types in favor of calling them all rdf:List?

How can I differentiate the semantics of various choice and composite use
cases, e.g., sometimes my composite is a collection of things and sometimes
it is an amalgamation (see my previous juxtaposition use case)?

Regards,

Jacob


On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Actually in JSON-LD the serialization would be identical, regardless of
> whether it's an rdf:List or multiple triples with the same predicate.  It
> would also be identical to the oa:List serialization.
>
> Composite with multiple oa:item predicates:
>
> {
>   "@type": "oa:Composite",
>   "oa:item": [item1, item2, item3]
> }
>
> Composite with oa:members predicate with a range of rdf:List:
>
> {
>   "@type": "oa:Composite",
>   "oa:members": [item1, item2, item3]
> }
>
> And for comparison, oa:List with oa:members predicate:
>
> {
>   "@type": "oa:List",
>   "oa:members" : [item1, item2, item3]
> }
>
> As Stian says, it's the semantics that the class embues on the membership
> list.  I would even go so far as to say that the use of rdf:List is better
> than multiple predicates as the membership is closed rather than allowing
> the potential for other oa:item triples to be added to the
> Choice/Composite/List after the fact.
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Jacob Jett <jgjett@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Paolo,
>>
>> How are we to express the oa:Composite entity in JSON-LD? It's nothing
>> like a list entity and I'm pretty confidant that expressing it as an array
>> is not the correct way to express it.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jacob
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Paolo Ciccarese <
>> paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> in the process of defining the first draft of the model, the plan
>>> emerged in the last call is to (i) start from the Community draft (
>>> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/), (ii) get rid of the SPARQL
>>> queries and (iii) replace the turtle with JSON-LD.
>>>
>>> Also, after the email discussions, the current orientation is to
>>>
>>> 1) replace the Choice/Composite/List constructs with one simple
>>> list-based construct as follows:
>>> {
>>>   "@type": "oa:List",
>>>   "members": ["eg:target1", "eg:target2", "eg:target3"]
>>> }
>>>
>>> Choice as list of descending priority
>>>
>>> {
>>>  "@type" : "oa:Choice",
>>>  "members": ["eg:option1", "eg:option2", "eg:option3"]
>>> }
>>>
>>> 2) Replace ContentAsText with something like:
>>> {
>>>   "@type": "oa:Content",
>>>   "value": "I love this book!",
>>>   "format": "text/plain",
>>>   "language": "en"
>>> }
>>>
>>> Where:
>>> * rdf:value -- for recording the content (required)
>>> * dc:format -- for the media type of the content (optional)
>>> * dc:language -- for the language of the content (optional)
>>>
>>> Content encoded using UTF-8.
>>>
>>> See you tomorrow for further discussions,
>>> Paolo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>