W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > February 2013

Last draft comment: Specifiers and Specific Resources

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 18:51:47 +0100
Message-ID: <510EA3B3.30600@few.vu.nl>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi,

http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/specific.html#Specific

I'm generally very happy with the re-wording done in section 3.1 and several other places. It really makes the spec better!

I think all my comments at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2013Jan/0099.html
have been answered now.

Some extra editorial advice:

1. "The Style resource is linked from the Annotation, however its only implementation (oa:CssStyle) requires the Specific Resource to have additional information."

I'd move this one to section 3.4. It's quite specific for an introduction, and makes the introduction depending on later changes on details.
We had the discussion in [1] and I'm still uneasy with the fact that the spec does not explicit sort out in 3.4 how an annotation would handle different styles that are each used by one specific resource of a same annotation. And the end of Stian's email [2] hints that there could be styles that apply to no specific resources. While I'm not calling for the spec to solve these issues now - as Stian puts it, it's even not sure they would happen. I'd just advise against putting dependencies on this in the text outside of section 3.4. And perhaps an editor's note in that section would be good to address readers' doubts, if just to say that the current situation may not answer all implementation issues on the matter.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2013Jan/0106.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2013Jan/0108.html


2. "The scope, such as a webpage containing the target image, is linked with oa:hasScope and does not convey a validity test for the annotation, just that the web page was being viewed when the Annotation was created."

We should not mention a "validity test" notion here. Unless I've missed anything, this is the first (and only?) time it appears in the entire documentation. Plus, if you keep it, then I'll have to ask either what such test mean, or why scopes would not convey it. And I'm not sure any of us wants this ;-)


3. " For example, it is possible to use URIs with fragments directly, as in the Core document, the FragmentSelector class, for rectangular areas either media fragments or the SvgSelector and for plain text documents either RFC 5147 or the Text Selectors. "

This sentence could do with extra punctuation - or some splitting, as you see fit.

Antoine
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 17:52:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:03 UTC