Re: Last draft comment: Specifiers and Specific Resources

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Let's try again. The case I have in mind is
>
> <ann> a oa:Annotation ;
>  oa:hasBody <body1> ;
>  oa:hasBody <body2> .
> <body1> oa:styleClass "important" .
> <body2> oa:styleClass "emphasis" .
>
> No multiplicity involved here. But "important" and "emphasis" are defined in
> *two different styles*. Say, <style1> and <style2>.
>
> Attaching both styles at the level of the annotation is possible:
> <ann> a oa:Annotation ;
>  oa:styledBy <style1> ;
>  oa:styledBy <style2> .

This is where the multiplicity comes in.  oa:styledBy currently says:
    "The relationship between an Annotation and the oa:Style.
     There MAY be 0 or 1 styledBy relationships for each Annotation."

So hence you would need <ann> oa:styledBy <List> ; <List> oa:item
<style1>, <style2>
Then you would know which style had precedence due to the order of the list.


> But then I'm unclear how a data consumer would know which is the style that
> corresponds to each class. They could inspect the styles and see whether
> there's a corresponding class in it. But this could have issues (e.g. two
> styles defining a same class but with different stylings).

Yes, this is what I meant by the styles having conflicting class definitions.


> And of course Stian's suggestion that <anno> could have some other property,
> with a value that would be styled according to a third style, would make the
> picture even more confusing.
> Or is it just the case that such mind-boggling situations are *not allowed*
> in OA?

Currently they're not allowed, unless you profess to know what you're
doing by using a multiplicity construct :)

Rob

Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 16:28:48 UTC