On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Benjamin Young <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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 don't think so. I love it. That's why I've done it that way. All I'm asking is that we don't specify for Annotator that the user field must be a string literal that our context document maps as foaf:nick. It could be a URI (like we have) or, honestly, any arbitrary resource that may or may not have a "nick" property. Unless I'm misunderstanding something fundamental. I sometimes do get tripped up on RDF, especially where literals come into play.
_______________________________________________ annotator-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
