RE: model: multiple resources

Sorry, should have added: the case I described is also not a “list” because the ordering of the bodies is not significant. (And obviously, it is not a “choice”.)

Ray

From: Denenberg, Ray [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 4:15 PM
To: 'Web Annotation'
Subject: model: multiple resources

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