Closed nichtich closed 1 year ago
Some questions:
bodyValue
and body
, right? Creating the sum of assessment annotations is easier if bodyValue
is always present (which is currently assumed).It's probably not allowed to use both bodyValue and body, right?
I think it's allowed, so we could use this form:
{
"motivation": "assessing",
"bodyValue": "-1",
"body": {
"type": "TextualBody",
"value": "PREDEFINED-COMMENT",
"purpose": "tagging"
}
}
Should the SpecificResource/tagging body be restricted to negative assessments? What if the assessment is patched from negative to positive?
Our use case only covers negative assessments so body
would only be allowed when there is bodyValue
with -1
and changing the assessment would disallow a comment.
Where do the clients get the list of predefined comments?
We could put it into /status
endpoint in annotations.tagMismatch
(list of URIs).
I assume it would be enough to add a check whether the specified comment URI belongs to the mismatch vocabulary, i.e. is in the https://uri.gbv.de/terminology/mismatch/
namespace as defined in https://github.com/gbv/jskos-server/issues/198#issuecomment-1508225692?
Now that we're using a vocabulary, how will API consumers access that vocabulary? Should the whole vocabulary, including labels, be given in /status
?
I will likely implement this on Wednesday.
We decided to do like this:
/status
endpoint).First implementation of this feature is now in Dev. It should work as expected, but there are still some open issues:
I've added detailed documentation about this feature: https://github.com/gbv/jskos-server/tree/dev#mapping-mismatch-tagging-for-negative-assessment-annotations
I'm not 100% sure whether that's the best spot for it. What do you think, @nichtich?
I also don't think we should delay this too much for that fix in jskos-validate. The current workaround is totally fine in my opinion.
Negative assessing annotation (
motivation=assessing
andbodyValue=-1
) should be allowed to optionally include a comment from a list of predefined comments to clarify the reason for negative annotation. Following Web Annotation Data Model this can be modeled like this (annotation records reduced to fields relevant to this issue):There is another method to use plain text comments (pro: can directly be displayer, con: no identifier)
In both cases clients need a list of predefined comments, so I prefer the first variant with
SpecificResource
.Open question is whether to deprecate
bodyValue
(a shortcut for TextualBody object) and also use this more verbose form for simple annotations, e.g.But we still need to support both single-value
body
and arraybody
, so I thing its easier to havebodyValue
body
, being an array of two elements, the firstTextualBody
withvalue=-1
and the secondSpecificResource
withpurpose=tagging
.