- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:45:34 -0700
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > On 1/9/13 6:05 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote: >> Side question: I'd be curious to hear whether >> oa:Annotation rdfs:subClassOf ore:Aggregation >> holds for you (for me it does!) >> >> We tried that in OAC, you may not be surprised to hear. It ... was not >> well received. >> See: http://www.openannotation.org/spec/alpha2/#DM_Baseline and compare to >> /alpha and /beta > > Well, if you already had this view that annotations are serialization, it's > not a surprise that a mapping to ore:Aggregation (which are rather abstract > beasts) has been not well received! No, it was the following issues: * The assumption was that if Annotation == Aggregation, then the bodies and targets are the aggregated resources. * The ORE docs say that non resolvable URIs cannot be aggregated. This kills any UUID or blank node resource as an aggregated resource. * The Proxy construction for talking about the resource-in-the-context-of-the-Annotation was not especially liked. This would be the equivalent of a Specific Resource that we have now. * The mandatory separation of Annotation/Aggregation and (serialization)/ResourceMap Rob
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 20:46:01 UTC