Re: [model] Proposal: Allow motivatedBy on SpecificResource

Hi Ivan,

As memory serves multiple bodies and multiple targets were never restricted
by the CG. In fact, as I recall it was designed to allow a number of bodies
that apply equally to a number of targets within the context of the same
motivation. This might have been a variety of the tagging use case that got
spun out as a "needed" alternative to choices and composites.

Regards,

Jacob



_____________________________________________________
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 Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

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