RE: [model] Proposal: Allow motivatedBy on SpecificResource

Rob-

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

Tim, all,

…

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu <mailto: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.

Thanks for the reminder about containership vis-à-vis previous discussions about annotation sets/lists. 

 

It will be interesting to see how applications and communities use or don’t use containers as ways to organize annotations. Will applications use containers as a way to group chained or otherwise related annotations together? I.e., as a signal to consuming applications that you should take all the annotations in this container if you want to fully understand the context for the individual annotations contained.  This could come in handy, though it presumably would result in a proliferation of containers.

 

And when transferring or posting a set of annotations, containers would facilitate an application checking that the entire set of annotations was successfully posted or transferred. There are other ways, maybe better ways, I’m sure, but intriguing option.

 

For today’s LDP servers, how high the overhead of having lots and lots of basic containers…? Practically speaking, how much impact on annotation discovery of distributing your annotations among over many containers, do you think? Can such use of containers scale?

 

Tim Cole