Re: In preparation to the F2F: Data Model status

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jacob Jett <jgjett@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

Yes, that's right :)


> 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?
>

The semantic distinction between Choice and the other two is important
(pick one, require all) but I'm less convinced we need to distinguish
between Composite and List.

Is there a use case when it is important *not* to have order?  If the
serialization and underlying model always has order, to me oa:Composite is
going out of our way to include something that has no practical difference
with oa: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)?
>

Can you give examples of both please, so we can compare?

Thanks!

Rob