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

Re: roles and multiple bodies

From: Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 16:27:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CABzPtB+zWTmLFDVXAvtK6jDOAtEFzC=s76R2Zy6GXwrnmTAM8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Denenberg, Ray" <rden@loc.gov>
Cc: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
Hi Ray,

To follow up on Paolo's question, isn't a roleAssignment a property of the
Annotation itself in the proposed solution?

So you get the following triples:

_:anno1 hasRoleAssignment _:b1
_:b1 for _:anno1
_:b1 role _:role1
_:b1 assignedTo _:body1

So I suppose the question is how is the oa:for predicate different from the
reciprocal of the oa:hasRoleAssignment predicate?

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 Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:

> Hi Paolo,
>
>
>
> I felt the forAnnotation to be necessary, because without it, you would be
> saying “this role is assigned to this body”, independent of any particular
> annotation. So if some other role were to be assigned to that body, for a
> different annotation, there would be a conflict.
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> *From:* Paolo Ciccarese [mailto:paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 04, 2015 5:13 PM
> *To:* Denenberg, Ray
> *Cc:* Web Annotation
> *Subject:* Re: roles and multiple bodies
>
>
>
> Hi Ray,
>
> Is the subject of oa:hasRoleAssignment still the annotation?
>
> I would probably  remove oa:forAnnotation as it looks redundant to me.
>
>
>
> It is a little bit indirect in JSON but it seems a possible solution.
>
> Who needs to be more specific could add those sections.
>
>
>
> Paolo
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>
> Has the following approach been considered?  I don’t think it violates any
> of the principles that Rob is defending, because it explicitly narrows the
> scope of the role to the annotation:
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.example.org/annotation>      a  oa:Annotation ;
>
>
>
>           oa:hasTarget  <http://www.example.org/target>      ;
>
>
>
>           oa:hasBody  <http://www.example.org/body1>  ;
>
>           oa:hasBody  <http://www.example.org/body2>   ;
>
>           oa:hasBody  <http://www.example.org/body2>   ;
>
>
>
> oa:hasRoleAssignment [
>
>                       oa:role                   <role1>   ;
>
>                        oa:assignedTo     <http://www.example.org/body1> ;
>
>                       oa:forAnnotation  <http://www.example.org/annotation>
> ] ;
>
>
>
> oa:hasRoleAssignment [
>
>                       oa:role                   <role2>   ;
>
>                        oa:assignedTo     <http://www.example.org/body2>  ;
>
>                       oa:forAnnotation  <http://www.example.org/annotation>
> ] ;
>
>
>
>
>
> oa:hasRoleAssignment [
>
>                       oa:role                   <role3>   ;
>
>                        oa:assignedTo     <http://www.example.org/body3>  ;
>
>                       oa:forAnnotation  <http://www.example.org/annotation>
> ] .
>
> --Ray
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
>
> Principal Knowledge and Software Engineer at PerkinElmer Innovation Lab
>
> Assistant Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
>
>
> Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
>
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5156-2703
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2015 21:28:27 UTC

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