Re: Connecting multiple fragment selectors with individual bodies

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org> wrote:

> sorry, but could you please give a hint where I could find some more
> background information regarding all these concepts you are discussing ?
>

Grouping annotations has been discussed here and there, but never in much
detail.  Mostly because it hasn't been considered within our remit to talk
about how annotations are used, rather than how they're specified.


> What I understand, is that CompositeAnnotation and AnnotationSet are
> concepts to relate multiple annotations, and that these concepts are much
> more suitable than hasSemanticTag to link together the annotation elements
> defined for my use case.
>

Yes, exactly :)



> But, what is bothering me is that I have to create a lot of unnecessary
> annotation instances in the model. Moreover, most of these instances will
> not represent annotations themselves, but only dependencies (or may be
> better said attributes) of annotations. Also, these attributes will never
> be intended to become independent "annotations".
>

The issue is one of definition of what an Annotation is.  Annotations in
the OA model as it stands can only have one body, although can have
multiple targets.  So in the model, you just can't do what you want to do
directly.



> What about my proposal to allow targets or at least target specifiers
> having a hasBody property ?
>

Unfortunately, due to the open world model for RDF, it would mean that all
of the bodies across multiple annotations would be inherited.  Every triple
has to be true in all contexts, not just the current document or in our
case Annotation.

This makes RDF rather verbose as it solves these issues by simply adding in
more nodes.

Rob