Re: model: multiple resources

Hi Ray, Jacob,

I think the situation is covered by the semantics of multiple bodies and
targets, exactly as per Ray's second example.

http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#multiple-bodies-or-targets

Rob


On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:

> Hi Ray,
>
> I feel like there are two ways to interpret your example, neither of which
> require a 4th "group" entity.
>
> In  my first interpretation, the example you lay out seems like an
> unordered list type of entity, in which case the list structure seems to be
> most appropriate (even unordered lists have orders, they're just arbitrary
> ones).
>
> The other way I interpret your example is that the your body is actually a
> composite but, you would like a method to gracefully fail should one of the
> parts of the composite not resolve correctly (or resolve at all). This
> would be useful in that the tool would still present what it could of the
> composite annotation to the end user. This seems like it would need to be
> handled through best practices.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jacob
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Jacob Jett
> Research Assistant
> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
> (217) 244-2164
> jjett2@illinois.edu
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305