Re: [model] Proposal: Allow motivatedBy on SpecificResource

Ivan, Jacob,

Yes, the pre-CG models only allowed for one body and multiple targets.  The
discussion in the CG was similar to the current one (one comment with
several tags, edit text with reason, etc) and the desire to keep them as a
single annotation, which led to multiple bodies and multiple targets.

While it would be a departure from the CG's model, if there's a consistent,
acceptable and simpler model that supports the same use cases, it would be
good to go with that :)

Rob



On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305