- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:13:30 -0600
- To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
- Cc: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>, Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org>, public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi Paolo, On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote: > Rob, > to me, what Lutz is doing looks more linking separate annotation with a > semantics that, however, in his example is not very explicit. It looks, to > me, very similar to what Kevin was doing with the annotations based on other > annotations. Agreed, though I was going from Lutz's response to my initial question where he says: In that case, it makes no sense to have 5 non-related annotations for that kind of annotations, because the annotation is only valuable, if all of the related elements can be expressed within a single annotation ! So I think that both approaches could be valid. > I see grouping the annotation with the Composite Annotation as orthogonal > and therefore as possible on top of what Lutz is already doing. Agree that linking annotations and grouping them are somewhat orthogonal, hence my red 'x:rel' placeholder relationship between the annotations in the diagram. > Just to give a little more background about the grouping of annotation, Rob > and I had a side conversation and we see three different levels of > aggregations: > - Annotation Set (by topic, purpose....) > - Composite Annotation > - Annotations > I am assuming I could also nest additional levels. Like a > CompositeAnnotation hasAnnotation another CompositeAnnotation. Where a set of annotations is collection created for some reason and the individual annotations can be re-aggregated into other arbitrary sets, but a Composite Annotation is a construction for maintaining all of the annotations together, and hence the annotations that compose it should not be disaggregated. Rob
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 20:13:59 UTC