Re: [model] Proposal: Allow motivatedBy on SpecificResource

To be explicit (in case it got lost in the json) ...

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Rob,
> could these two cases co-exist?
>
> {"body" : [ {
>         "role" : "edit",
>         "content" : "literalcontent"
>      }]}
>
> {"body" : [ {
>         "role" : "edit",
>         "content" : {
>            "@id": "http://youtube.com/somevideo"
>         }
>      }]}
>
> In other words, we use the shortcut for the literals (that cannot be
> reused anyway) and the verbose way with resources?
>

The question for me is the type of the body resource.

To expand it for clarity, if it's a specific resource:

{
  "@id": "http://example.org/anno1",
  "@type": "oa:Annotation",
  "body": {
    "@type": "oa:SpecificResource",
    "role": "commenting",
    "body" : "literalcontent"
  },
  "target" : "http://example.org/target1"
}

Which seems confusing and has highly undesirable consequences for the model
(like infinite nesting of bodies being valid).

Or if it's an EmbeddedContent:

{
  "@id": "http://example.org/anno1",
  "@type": "oa:Annotation",
  "body": {
    "@type": "oa:EmbeddedContent",
    "role": "commenting",
    "value" : "literalcontent"
  },
  "target" : "http://example.org/target1"
}

Which is at least better when there isn't a URI that identifies the
content, but allows in conjunction with the specific resource case that we
need to allow for when there ARE URIs for the resources:

{
  "@id": "http://example.org/anno1",
  "@type": "oa:Annotation",
  "body": {
    "@type": "oa:SpecificResource",
    "role": "commenting",
    "source" : {
      "@type": "oa:SpecificResource",
      "role": "tagging",
      "value" : "literalcontent"
    }
  },
  "target" : "http://example.org/target1"
}

Which is again very strange, and neither seem much simpler than the
consistent model of just having it on the SpecificResource.

Rob