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