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

Re: Multiplicity and Roles

From: Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:31:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAE3H5FKLYdoFCS9EsPo0nS0m19hCx4b0e4pSEgEbTXiicn01dw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: t-cole3 <t-cole3@illinois.edu>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Hi Tim,
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>>
>> The individual items or members of the set are not meant to be understood
>> in the context of the annotation independently, or why would you put them
>> in Composite or List.  While the resources in the set may have roles within
>> the set, it is the role of the set as a whole in the annotation that is
>> expressed using oa:hasRole.
>
>
> So I think we only need to worry about whether the role is assigned
>> directly to the Choice, Composite, List instance or whether role is
>> assigned to the Choice, Composite, List instance via a SpecificResource
>> that has the multiplicity class instance as its content/source.
>
>
>
> To be clear, meaning that we don't need to consider per-resource roles
> within the Composite or List?  And hence it's just the same as Choice?
>
> I think that makes sense.
>

+1

Making this clear should only help alleviate likely confusion afaict.


>   Does anyone have an example use case that would require this?
>

I can't think of any situation where you'd want a Composite or a List with
varying roles. It sounds like a recipe for disaster...actually. :)


>
> Rob
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2015 17:31:50 UTC

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