W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Consistency for FragmentSelector value

From: James Smith <jgsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:51:01 -0400
Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
Message-Id: <0EF489CD-BA16-4B33-8918-4F4AA3A0DF5C@gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Please could you weigh in on a minor issue of consistency.
> 
> In the current specification, oa:FragmentSelector uses rdf:value to
> record the fragment, whereas other resources use the Content in RDF
> specification to include their data into the graph.
> 
> Should oa:FragmentSelector also use cnt:chars, or is it more like
> TextOffsetSelector/TextQuoteSelector in that the properties should be
> just part of the graph and not able to be exported?  Is there a clear
> rule that we can use to determine which is appropriate?


My feeling is that FragmentSelector is like TextOffsetSelector. It's value is a valid fragment, which isn't open to mime type interpretation or character encoding. Fragments have a very specific format (RFC 3986, section 3.5 [pg. 24]) that assumes a UTF-8 superset of US-ASCII (or other suitable superset of US-ASCII) meaningful in the context of the resource to which the fragment is attached.

We might interpret fragments, but that interpretation should be outside the scope of the FragmentSelector schema.

I think the general rule could be that if a resource could stand on its own as a resource (i.e., if we have examples in the wild of similar content being placed at a URL for consumption), then it can use the cnt:chars and related properties. If the value is just a value that depends on some other related context for meaning, then it doesn't need the cnt:chars & co. properties.

-- Jim
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 16:51:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 June 2012 16:51:14 GMT