- From: Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:14:45 -0400
- To: "'Web Annotation'" <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5483534C5FA8464B881ED2184D98C0F61446BA5A1B@LCXCLMB03.LCDS.LOC.GOV>
For multiple bodies/targets we have (1) choice, (2) composite, (3) list. I think there should be a fourth. Let's call it (4) group. Suppose I have 10 annotations that I want to submit for a resource and let's say they all have the same metadata. So I decide instead of 10 annotations, to submit a single annotation with 10 bodies. "Composite" doesn't seem to fit this situation: "A Composite is a set of resources that are all required for an Annotation to be correctly interpreted." I feel there is a distinction between, on one hand, grouping a bunch of bodies into a single annotation for efficiency purposes, versus, on the other hand, multiple bodies which only make sense as a composite. In the first case, if one of those bodies cannot be processed, the other nine can; in the second case, no. And instead of: <anno1> a oa:Annotation ; oa:hasTarget <target1> ; oa:hasBody [ a oa:Group ; oa:item <body1> ; oa:item <body2> . You could say: <anno1> a oa:Annotation ; oa:hasTarget <target1> ; oa:hasBody <body1> ; oa:hasBody <body2> . So "group" would sort of be the default, that is, multiple bodies without a "multiplicity type" would default to "group". (And there's probably a better name than "group" but I can't think of one offhand.) Ray
Received on Monday, 20 April 2015 20:15:14 UTC