Changes between Version 15 and Version 16 of DASISH/DiscussionPage

Timestamp:

04/22/13 10:09:35 (11 years ago)

Author:

olhsha

Comment:

--

DASISH/DiscussionPage

@@ +1 @@
+**<Olha>** [2013-04-16]
+I will try to sum up MPI's position in brief.
+
+-- Regarding the structure of  annotation bodies and binary relation in particular. For now the schema allows to put in the  body any xml. This is our intention for now '''not''' to make rigid schema for particular kinds of body.  Now binary relations we have in examples are just reasonable examples. Defining their structure is not a priority task at the moment, so may be this answers a few questions of Stephanie and Olof below.
+
+-- Regarding xml:id. Yes, we know that @ and # are not allowed, that's why I took them out from the id-s in the newest examples. We think that allowing @ and # are not worth efforts on making our own "dasish:id" and checking its uniqueness, etc.
+
+-- Stephanie: "it will not be possible to store multiple binary relations (Appendix I, R(A,B): Implies, Equivalent, Implies the opposite, Contradicts) with one and the same annotation." My personal opinion: I would not like to have multiple relations on the same annotation, it seems a bit messy...
+
+-- Stephanie  about binary relation "different": "Do you intend to have an expandable list for the binary relations?". My personal opinion: yes, in principle I would like to have such a list. But see the first item above: for now everything can be in the body.
+
+-- Within these days we will elaborate our common opinion on Olof's question  about versioning: "According to the latest draft, the targetSource element is to contain URI and versionString elements. On the other hand, the parent targetSource element has the attribute xml:id with a value of SID. According to the technical summary, sid contains both aoid, i.e. the URI of an annotatable object outside the DB, and vid, i.e. version identifier (if not omitted and thus being equivalent to the latest version). So we wonder why you put that in and what the benefit of these two elements would be."  
+
+
+
+
 **<Stephanie>** [2013-04-16] Olof took up the following issue before, but I would like to note it down here, just to make sure. According to the current design model, it will not be possible to store multiple binary relations (Appendix I, R(A,B): Implies, Equivalent, Implies the opposite, Contradicts) with one and the same annotation. Rather, a new annotation needs to be posted if a writer wants to add more relations to (e.g.) an annotated string on a web page that already holds one single binary relation. Is this really our intention?