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

Re: Multiple bodies v. multiple annotations: annotating a base annotation

From: Suhrbier, Lutz <L.Suhrbier@bgbm.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:23:27 +0200
To: "public-annotation@w3.org" <public-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55B0EB30.5060603@bgbm.org>
Hi Ray,

we had that discussion in the CG, about two years ago. Finally, multiple bodies, and the hasScope relationship have been introduced. I must say, within our AnnoSys project, I am very happy that we have these means to assemble multiple annotated parts of a target within a single annotation, and not to clutter our stores with annotation instances, which in fact do not represent annotations.

In our use case, an annotation may consist of several elements in an XML-document, which are belonging together logically and semantically. So, cluttering the store with annotations, which can not stand on its own makes no sense in my opinion, even when they are linked together by a suitable motivation terminologie. Furthermore, performance will be reduced, if you have to query 10 times more annotations and filter out those who are "base" annotations., These are my two main reasons, why multiple bodies are really useful !


Am 22.07.2015 um 18:12 schrieb Denenberg, Ray:
Just want to clarify the model I was describing (on the call).

Instead of multiple bodies in an annotation, submit each body in a separate annotation, but first, submit a base annotation (with no body) and then all those “separate” annotations annotate the base annotation.

The complication cited was that this base annotation would be some sort of special type of annotation and that there would have to be some way to designate it as such.  But I don’t think it’s any more complicated than just assigning it the motivation “baseAnnotation” (or come up with some gerund/verb form of that).

Received on Thursday, 23 July 2015 13:41:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:38 UTC