Multiplicity and Roles

The (very valid) concern raised by Jacob and Stian is that the proposal as
it stands does not mention multiplicity at all, being Choice, Composite and
List.

If role should be only on SpecificResource, then the content/source for it
would have to be the multiplicity construct, such as:

{
  "type": "Annotation",
  "target": "http://example.com/target",
  "body": {
     "role": "commenting",
     "content": {
         "type": "Choice",
         "members": [
             "http://comment.example.org/en",
             "http://comment.example.org/fr"
          ]
       }
   }
}

Which doesn't seem too bad to me. Would be great to get other folks'
reactions to this particular case.


It becomes more complex for Composite or List, as there would be the
specific resource for the Choice/List within the Annotation, and then the
specific resource to associate the role with the actual resource.  That
said, the pattern is consistent and reliable, if deeply nested.

{
  "type": "Annotation",
  "target": "http://example.com/target",
  "body": {
     "content": {
         "type": "List",
         "members": [
           {
              "role": "commenting",
              "content": "http://comment.example.org/en"
           },
           {
              "role": "tagging",
              "content": {
                 "text": "tag"
               }
           }
          ]
       }
   }
}

This structure does make the lack of type more concerning, as the members
of the Choice or List could be anything, and not necessarily consistent
within any individual construct.


Rob

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