- From: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:49:43 -0400
- To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Following Rob's posting of Oct 1, 2012 [1] explaining the Chicago F2F meeting decision about Multiple Resources, I ask whether the models I have below are correct and appropriate for the following use case: We want to annotate several SpecificResources (in our case some database records) all with the same Source (a certain dataset with a URI), and to all of which the assertions of a single common Body are to apply. The oa:Selectors are queries which happen to be the same except that they differ in some of the bound values in the query. One could think of the same problem as one of annotating a spreadsheet to make simultaneous assertions about all rows that have specific, different, values in particular columns. In the pre-Multiple Resources days, OA permitted multiple targets but only one body, so for the use case one could write _:x a oa:Annotation; oa:hasBody <theBody>; oa:hasTarget <spTarget1>; oa:hasTarget <spTarget2>. <spTarget1> a oa:SpecificResource; oa:hasSource <theSource>; oa:hasSelector <selector1> . <spTarget2> a oa:SpecificResource; oa:hasSource <theSource>; oa:hasSelector <selector2> . In this case it was (implicit? explicit?) that <theBody> applied to all the Targets. Post the F2F decision, I can see (at least) two solutions, depending on whether one models with an oa:Set of SpecificTargets each with its own Selector, or a single SpecificTarget with an oa:Set of Selectors. Are both of the models _:y and _:z below consistent with the intent of oa:Set? Are they semantically equivalent? _:y a oa:Annotation ; oa:hasBody <theBody> ; oa:hasTarget <theTargets> . <theTargets> a oa:Set ; oa:item <SpTarget1> ; oa:item <SpTarget2> . <SpTarget1> a oa:SpecificResource ; oa:hasSelector <Selector1> ; oa:hasSource <theSource> . <SpTarget2> a oa:SpecificResource ; oa:hasSelector <Selector2> ; oa:hasSource <theSource> . ------------ _:z a oa:Annotation ; oa:hasBody <theBody>; oa:hasTarget <theTarget> . <theTarget> a oa:SpecificResource ; oa:hasSource <theSource> ; oa:hasSelector <theSelectors> . <theSelectors> a oa:Set ; oa:item <Selector1> ; oa:item <Selector2> . ------------ One observation: if these are correct and equivalent, they illustrate something that feels generically true and intuitively obvious: for serialized OA, but possible not for the RDF graphs, the further down the Annotation tree you put the container, the smaller the serialization. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2012Oct/0004.html Thanks for comments Bob Morris -- Robert A. Morris Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 IT Staff Filtered Push Project Harvard University Herbaria Harvard University email: morris.bob@gmail.com web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram === The content of this communication is made entirely on my own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or Harvard University.
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2012 21:50:10 UTC