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

Re: Last draft comment: Specifiers and Specific Resources

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 22:26:42 +0100
Message-ID: <51102792.30002@few.vu.nl>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On 2/4/13 5:28 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Antoine Isaac<aisaac@few.vu.nl>  wrote:
>
>> Let's try again. The case I have in mind is
>>
>> <ann>  a oa:Annotation ;
>>   oa:hasBody<body1>  ;
>>   oa:hasBody<body2>  .
>> <body1>  oa:styleClass "important" .
>> <body2>  oa:styleClass "emphasis" .
>>
>> No multiplicity involved here. But "important" and "emphasis" are defined in
>> *two different styles*. Say,<style1>  and<style2>.
>>
>> Attaching both styles at the level of the annotation is possible:
>> <ann>  a oa:Annotation ;
>>   oa:styledBy<style1>  ;
>>   oa:styledBy<style2>  .
>
> This is where the multiplicity comes in.  oa:styledBy currently says:
>      "The relationship between an Annotation and the oa:Style.
>       There MAY be 0 or 1 styledBy relationships for each Annotation."
>
> So hence you would need<ann>  oa:styledBy<List>  ;<List>  oa:item
> <style1>,<style2>
> Then you would know which style had precedence due to the order of the list.
>
>
>> But then I'm unclear how a data consumer would know which is the style that
>> corresponds to each class. They could inspect the styles and see whether
>> there's a corresponding class in it. But this could have issues (e.g. two
>> styles defining a same class but with different stylings).
>
> Yes, this is what I meant by the styles having conflicting class definitions.
>
>
>> And of course Stian's suggestion that<anno>  could have some other property,
>> with a value that would be styled according to a third style, would make the
>> picture even more confusing.
>> Or is it just the case that such mind-boggling situations are *not allowed*
>> in OA?
>
> Currently they're not allowed, unless you profess to know what you're
> doing by using a multiplicity construct :)



OK! I suppose this fully alleviates my concerns. I had missed the list thing in the doc (is it there?). It seems a good solution...

Antoine
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 21:27:12 UTC

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