On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2014 11:17 AM, "Robert Sanderson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Proposals: > > > > 1. Tags are about the target(s) of the Annotation, and are thus Bodies > of the annotation. > > > > +1 > > This is not likely to be terribly wrong for most use, I think. It also > means we don't need to migrate existing annotations, extracting their tags > and turning those into second order annotations. > > > 2. User holds the user name of the account, and thus the appropriate > mapping is foaf:nick > > > > -0 > > For our use at Hypothesis, the user field is a URI, not a string literal > representing a foaf:nick. > Could the value of oa:annotatedBy not directly be the user URI in this case? "The object of the [oa:annotatedBy] relationship is a resource that identifies the agent responsible for creating the Annotation." Is that overly simplified? I hadn't realized all "implementation specific" FoaF properties were. http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Agent > If I have to override the context document, fine. > > But also worth pointing out that without the auth and permissions plugins > there is no user field. If those components are optional, should the base > context even include them? > > _______________________________________________ > annotator-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev > >
_______________________________________________ annotator-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
