Re: [model] Proposal: Allow motivatedBy on SpecificResource

Well… I still find all this confusing, because we sort of agree, then we seem not to agree (and I am not sure why), then agree again…

Rob, can you write down how you think we can have multiple bodies in an annotation with roles/motivations? Because, frankly, I am lost. (And yes, I did read the specifier section. But that is related in higher level concepts level, which I think I understand, and not addressing specifically the issue of multiple bodies…)

Thanks

Ivan


> On 25 Jun 2015, at 02:26 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Call me devious or lazy, but if you read through:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#specifiers
> 
> And at the end don't understand what the role of SpecificResource is, then we need to create some issues to fix the data model description :)
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> 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"
>              }
>           }
>           …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704