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

Re: Style

From: Shannon Bradshaw <shannon.bradshaw@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:02:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEjFNZQk8ivN4_Rb7Lp+N04Q--kRYA9jU-H8V4jdmac-rns3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Apologies for being late to the party on this.

In the manuscript domain, when identifying a region of interest on a page
for viewing by users, it is frequently necessary to prefer certain colors
over others, not because a given color indicates a different semantics but
because it would otherwise be very difficult to see exactly what is being
selected as a specific target, given the ink used to produce a feature of
interest. Many pages are best viewed using a small number of different
colors for identifying specific targets simply because of the variety of
inks used on the page.

Without style specifications such as color, in many cases in the manuscript
domain, a user will find it unduly difficult to see the targets of an
annotation in a viewer. To ensure fundamental semantics (the targets and
bodies) are effectively communicated to users in this domain (and others, I
suspect), I believe it necessary to include some style elements. I think
this argues for inclusion of style in the core specification. If it ends up
in the extension spec instead, so be it.

-Shannon

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <StrongOpinion>
> > Basically, our current need is for data annotation to address
> > fitness-for-purpose, and my guess is that most people annotating
> > documents also have that motivation. But it's hard to see how to model
> > fitness-for-purpose without reference to knowledge representation in
> > the domain of the Body and Topic.  From this perspective, I continue
> > to believe that Style doesn't belong in an annotation knowledge
> > representation---I see it as just a tool based on thousands of years
> > of document production, by which an ao:Annotator is hiding some
> > fitness-for-use concept that is potentially integrable with someone
> > else's  were it only clearer why the Annotator designated, or cared
> > about, that style.  But, if you are able to, e.g. express that your
> > red stuff is meant to denote that this part of the document signals
> > something the consuming agent should somehow care about, why shouldn't
> > that concern be expressed with something less context sensitive than
> > "text has red background color".
> > </StrongOpinion>
> >
> > To the extent that my StrongOpinion analysis is shared, it is perhaps
> > an argument that Style belongs in oax.
>
> Apologies if I'm reviving an old thread, but I think this is well
> argued. Particularly given the fact that no sub-classes of Style are
> currently in the core, putting it in the extension begins to strike me
> as reasonable.
>
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 16:02:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 September 2012 16:02:48 GMT