W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > August 2015

Re: Multiple bodies v. multiple annotations: annotating a base annotation

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:57:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUE1xH7=bBiAs6GGzMv9=c861O36f3sBw_1i48Cmp8wRTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Suhrbier, Lutz" <L.Suhrbier@bgbm.org>
Cc: "t-cole3@illinois.edu" <t-cole3@illinois.edu>, "public-annotation@w3.org" <public-annotation@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Suhrbier, Lutz <L.Suhrbier@bgbm.org> wrote:

>
> Also, I do not see how the addition of a oa:motivatedBy predicate could
> help to relate specific bodies to specific targets more than oa:hasScope ?
>

Right, that's not the intent of adding a role/motivation to
SpecificResource. The requirement expressed is to have bodies with clearly
distinguished, different roles.  Relating bodies to targets would be a
different, further requirement.


> But, in our use case, it would be useful to express an expectation towards
> the curator (e.g. update, remove or add the element related to that body)
> what he was expected to do with the given annotation in his collection
> database. Actually, we simply use rdf:type to express that. Potentially, an
> oa:motivation subclass "oa:expectation" could do the job much cleaner.
>

I'll repeat my argument against expectation, as separate from motivation:

It is a property of the transfer of the information between two systems,
not a feature of a persistent Annotation.  The motivation is to change the
content, which is fine.  However, if there's an expectation that the
receiving system will take an action when the annotation is sent to it,
then using an Annotation is overkill. There's perfectly fine HTTP verbs to
PATCH or PUT content.

Rob

-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Monday, 3 August 2015 16:57:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:39 UTC