Re: [model] Proposal: Allow motivatedBy on SpecificResource

Rob,

I am sympathetic to your proposal. However, we owe to ourselves to look at the reasons why we departed from the
restriction of the Annotation CG's document and introduced multiple bodies. Shame on me, but I do not remember the
reasons we made the change, and I did not find the traces in the mailing list. Can you remind me/us (or point at the
relevant mails) of the issues we thought of solving by allowing multiple bodies?

Thanks

Ivan


On Fri, June 19, 2015 4:16 pm, Robert Sanderson 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 donā€™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
>


-- 
Ivan Herman, W3C Team
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Sunday, 21 June 2015 13:47:16 UTC