- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:50:41 +0100
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: Christian Morbidoni <christian.morbidoni@gmail.com>, public-openannotation@w3.org
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: >> Regarding the Structured Body >> (http://www.openannotation.org/spec/extension/#StructuredBody): it seems a >> very strange approach to me. > There hasn't been an online discussion about it, though it was > discussed at a face to face meeting in Boston in March. I agree, it is a strange approach, as it will be very difficult to determine where the annotation starts and where it stops. I can see a few use cases, for instance if there is a single resource per oa:Annotation, where you could say that "anything else" is part of the struct - but what if there is such a struct on both the body and the target, which meet up at several places? What if a node in the <Struct> bit meets up with another bit of the annotation, like an oa:State? Ignoring the spec of 4.3, if I encountered the example shown there, I would interpret it that only <Struct1> was the body. If <Struct1> is a BNode, then it is <Struct1> and its immediate relations that is the body - but not X--b-->Z or X--b-->Y, and not even X. The rest is just arbitrary information that has been added to this graph - just like arbitrary properties attached to the oa:Annotation. I would propose to drop 4.3 - simply because people would try to do it (and get it wrong) rather than learn about named graphs and multiple resources. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 12:51:33 UTC