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

Re: [model] Proposal: Allow motivatedBy on SpecificResource

From: Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:20:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CABzPtBLQNvkMUh6G4N0erhg3VgMo+_b=wMio6xZV=N3du5nYEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
+1 for multiple annotations in the tag(s) + comment and edit + comment
cases.



_____________________________________________________
Jacob Jett
Research Assistant
Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
(217) 244-2164
jjett2@illinois.edu


On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Tim, all,
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> In my mind, allowing body-level motivations, at least for the use cases
>> so far proposed, is simply a way to conflate what should be separate
>> annotation graphs.
>>
>
>
>
>> For example, should the protocol have a way of allowing posting of
>> multiple (related or chained) annotations in a single transaction? (Does it
>> already?)
>>
>
> It does not.  LDP does not have a notion of transactions at all.  And (as
> you know) we don't have a notion of sets/lists of annotations beyond the
> unordered containership.
>
>
>> Anyway, I don’t want to flog a dead horse, but since Doug asked directly
>> about slippery slopes, I did want to elaborate on the trouble we might get
>> ourselves into if we allow multiple bodies that relate to multiple targets
>> and to each other in substantively different ways.  I still do think there
>> is a slippery slope potential here.
>>
>
> This seems like a good opportunity to re-evaluate multiple bodies as a
> feature at all.  To my knowledge, all multiple body use cases have been for
> different motivations.  Most frequently it has been comment plus tags that
> are all really about the same target.  If we went to a multiple annotation
> model for edit + comment, we could more reliably also go to a multiple
> annotation model for tag(s) + comment as well.  Then the individual
> annotations could be addressed individually, for example to moderate a tag
> without at the same time moderating the comment, or vice versa.
>
> Rob
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>
Received on Friday, 19 June 2015 16:21:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:37 UTC