RE: roles and multiple bodies

Hi Jacob – it’s a tough question  because you get into the weeds of blank nodes vs. independent resource, of which there was much discussion today, which I have skimmed but not absorbed.  But I think the issue here is that the role assignment might originally treat the role assignment as a blank node, but someone could turn it into a reusable resource. Then you have:

<uri>   a   RoleAssignment ;
           role   <roleX> ;
           for   <bodyX>   .
And without the forAnnotation, the annotation is lost.  I don’t know, Let Rob figure it out.

Ray

From: jgjett@gmail.com [mailto:jgjett@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jacob Jett
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 5:27 PM
To: Denenberg, Ray
Cc: Paolo Ciccarese; Web Annotation
Subject: Re: roles and multiple bodies

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<tel:%28217%29%20244-2164>
jjett2@illinois.edu<mailto:jjett2@illinois.edu>

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