- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:18:00 -0700
- To: "Cole, Timothy W" <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABevsUE2uFt1B0Jm8n81L5YaptwTMFKgZNEkjjS_wGFQzRAbzg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Tim, That works for literals but not URIs, and was one of the deficiencies in the CG model that we were trying to get rid of for SemanticTags. (e.g. a Video could be a Comment and a Reply in different annotations) Rob On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Cole, Timothy W <t-cole3@illinois.edu> wrote: > One more semantically valid approach to raise as a compromise possibility > for the multi-body / role issue. We currently allow this: > > "body": "paris" > > If you want to identify "paris" as a tag, then you clearly have to say a > little more. We currently tell you to do this: > > "body": { "type": ["Tag", "EmbeddedContent"],"value": "paris"} > > > How unnatural is this to plain JSON developers? > > > If it is acceptable, then I would propose extending this approach to do > this: > > "body": { "type": ["Comment", "EmbeddedContent"],"value": "paris"} > > (where Comment can be replaced by versions of our motivation vocabulary...) > > -Tim Cole > > ________________________________________ > From: Cole, Timothy W > Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 17:03 > To: 'Frederick Hirsch' > Cc: 'W3C Public Annotation List' > Subject: RE: Roles, multiple bodies, and creating wiki page of potential > solution > > For those who might be interested, I did create a wiki page illustrating > most of the proposed ways so far raised to describe (and thereby > differentiate) the non-multiplicity roles played by individual Bodies / > Targets included in a multi-Body / Target Annotation: > > > https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations > > I created 2 multi-body annotations and 1 multi-target annotation as > examples (scenarios), and then created serializations in both JSON and > Turtle illustrating the various approaches. The annotations created lack > required annotation provenance, but otherwise include (I think) all of the > MUST and SHOULD triples required by our data model. The multi-target > scenario is a bit of a stretch -- I suspect either we don't need to worry > about multi-Target use cases or we need to revise and maybe augment our > current list of Motivation terms to better handle multi-Target use cases. > > The first example includes 3 bodies: a Textual Body, a SemanticTag Body, > and a SpecificResource derived from a YouTube Video. > > The second example has 2 Textual Bodies, and the third example has 2 Web > page Targets. > > The approaches illustrated have mostly been discussed on the list, except > for the last approach which would type Bodies and Targets according to > their role in the Annotation (which will likely make Rob cringe a little). > > Anyway, may be helpful for our discussion Wednesday and beyond in case you > find the email links Fredrick provide not quite enough. > > Rob, Fredrick, since this page is transient, I did not try to link from > the WG Wiki's home page. Feel free if you think that useful. > > Thanks, > > Tim Cole > > -- Rob Sanderson Information Standards Advocate Digital Library Systems and Services Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2015 16:18:28 UTC