- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:16:54 -0400
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Chris Birk <cmbirk@gmail.com>, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Hey, Rob–
Hmm... somehow, this is starting to get really hairy… Are you saying
that to have a motivation/role on a body, it would have to have this
additional type:SpecificResource key/value? Why is that?
Can you explain to me what role 'SpecificResource' plays, and what the
name means. It's not intuitive to me.
(That nested body thing worries me.)
Thanks–
–Doug
On 6/24/15 4:09 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> I'm fine with that ... and to expand it slightly, it fits exactly into
> the pattern of Fig 29+
>
> {
> "@id": "http://example.org/anno1",
> "@type": "oa:Annotation",
> "body": {
> "@type": "oa:SpecificResource",
> "role": "commenting",
> "source": {
> "@id": "http://example.org/body1",
> "@type": "dctypes:Sound"
> },
> "target" : "http://example.org/target1"
> }
>
> The concern is about literals / embedded text, and following the same
> pattern for consistency.
>
> {
> "@id": "http://example.org/anno1",
> "@type": "oa:Annotation",
> "body": {
> "@type": "oa:SpecificResource",
> "role": "commenting",
> "source": {
> "@id": "http://example.org/body1",
> "@type": "oa:EmbeddedContent",
> "value": "I love this thing"
> },
> "target" : "http://example.org/target1"
> }
>
>
> Otherwise, if the role is NOT on the specific resource, and a specific
> resource is needed, we would have an unnecessary node sitting between
> the annotation and the specific resource just to hold the role.
>
> Also, for the literal case, currently the literal body is the object of
> oa:hasBody ... meaning ....
>
> {
> "@id": "http://example.org/anno1",
> "@type": "oa:Annotation",
> "body": {
> "@type": "oa:SpecificResource",
> "role": "commenting",
> "body": "I love this thing"
> }
> }
>
> That seems extremely hacky and introduces ridiculous recursion
> possibilities. Even bodyValue : literal would be better -- at least
> that could easily be translated into body {value: literal} more cleanly.
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Paolo Ciccarese
> <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com <mailto:paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> In other words, this (figure 3 of the specs):
>
> "body": {
> "@id":"http://example.org/body1",
> "@type":"dctypes:Sound"
> }
>
> Would become
>
> body" : [
> {
> "role" : "soundtrack",
> "content" : {
> "@id":"http://example.org/body1",
> "@type":"dctypes:Sound"
> }
> }
> …
>
>
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2015 00:17:00 UTC