[annotator-dev] Open Annotation support in Annotator

Fri Oct 10 21:14:35 UTC 2014

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat at hypothes.is>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Randall Leeds <tilgovi at hypothes.is>
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 10, 2014 11:17 AM, "Robert Sanderson" <azaroth42 at gmail.com> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/annotator-dev/attachments/20141010/d6d40eab/attachment-0004.html>