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

Re: New Draft comments: Specific Resources

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:27:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUGBu+LBHg9d1FrvGkzXsBWtgRf5z_+a5GVaJVCUHazEBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Dear Antoine and all,

To group the comments by theme:

__Style__

It was thought that style should be an Annotation level relationship:
1. There could be other implementations that do not require the
specific resource (for example the @document url() {} construction
from CSS3, or non CSS) and could be used directly on the body or
target.
2. The same style resource could be used for multiple resources in the
annotation (eg multiple targets) and thus it would save triples to
only reference it once.
3. It was thought to be strange to have the style *not* be a valid CSS
document.
4. It would be strange to have both styledBy and styleClass on the
specific resource
5. It is similar, notionally, to referring to the CSS in the HTML
<head> and then the individual elements having the style attribute.

My personal feelings:
1. Not a big deal, I don't think there will be any non CSS styles.
2. Again, a triple here and there is not a big deal. (but see textual
body discussion where people disagree)
3. I think this is the most important.  It would be very strange to
have a resolvable document that isn't valid CSS.
4. Strange, but not impossible. But see 2.
5. Useful, and perhaps should be made explicitly in the spec, but not
a strong argument.

I don't think that there should be a separate style module as the
specific resource is required to make Style work.  In the same way
that there shouldn't be a separate Scope module.  Agreed that the
wording can be fixed, in this regard.


__Classes__

The Specific Resource class isn't *essential* as a client can always
check for the existence of oa:hasSource.  On the other hand, it does
make the annotation easier to process.  I don't see any harm in having
it.
oa:Selector, oa:State and oa:Style (as opposed to their subClasses)
aren't needed other than as a parent for the range of
oa:hasSelector/hasState/hasStyle.  Again, I don't see any harm in
them?


__target1 vs source1__

Yes. However the dashed boundary lines would be even more important in
that case.  The reason that we called it target1 is that it's the same
resource as previously called target1, just in a different position in
the graph.

__Overlap__

Another overlap would be for rectangular regions that could be
described either using the Media Fragments or using <svg:rect>.
As we need the text and svg selectors, I don't see a way to avoid it.
The compromise to allow media fragments, plus the fragment selector,
plus other selectors does indeed mean that there will be multiple ways
to express the same region.

I think the rest are wording issues, which we'll resolve.

Rob

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While the discussion on literal vs resource bodies continues, I've decided
> to go for a break ;-) and check the rest of the documentation before the
> January 28 deadline.
> Here are some comments for the Specific Resource module,
> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/specific.html
> as of January 20.
>
> I think most are editorial, though some may touch on slightly deeper
> issues...
>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
> ====
>
> 1. Positioning of Rendering
> Does Rendering really fit a section on Specific Resources? States and
> Selectors are about restricting the "extent" of a resource being annotated.
> But Styles seem quite different beasts. This is in fact quite explicit in
> Fig 3.1.1 that positions "Specific Resource before styling. Bar comment 11,
> there's also the quite puzzling fact that oa:styledBy is attached to an
> Annotation resource, not to a specific body or target.
> So I'd suggest to move Styles in their own module. *Or* to label the module
> as "Specifiers". Indeed, for a reason that I'm entirely grasping,
> "specifiers" include more than what is needed to produce Specific Resources;
> that could have a nice effect of fitting better the entire module as it is
> defined now.
>
>
> 2. Figure 3.1.1 and specifiers workflow.
> Fig 3.1.1 and many sentences in the text around it (e.g., "then a Selector
> describes", "this chain") hint that there is a mandatory flow of
> state-selector-style. As mentioned before, Styles are on a quite different
> level. And besides, there is nothing that requires a State to be applied in
> addition to a Selector, or the other way around. Applying a State can lead
> straight to the SR node in the graph of Fig 3.1.1. And a Selector can be
> applied straight to a resource in the "Source" box. In fact one can read a
> contradiction between Fig 3.1.1 and "the complete image is the Source" in
> the text: because what the text says is a Source, would be in fact a
> Representation in Fig 3.1.1.
> Finally, Fig 3.1.1 does not state anything about Scopes.
> I think the idea is to express that States must be processed before
> Selectors etc, and this is valuable. But there are perhaps way to render it
> in a way that is less prescriptive of what should happen, and how the ins
> and outs of every step are to be refered to.
>
>
> 3. Specific Resource Class.
> As it stands, I'm wondering whether this class is needed at all. After all,
> one doesn't need the type, it is more the properties like oa:hasSource or
> oa:hasSelector that are important here. Unless SpecificResource is needed as
> a kind of functional "slot" which could be used in serializations where such
> slots have to be provided (as in plain XML)?
> In all case, the sentence "The oa:SpecificResource class SHOULD be
> associated with a Specific Resource." needs more motivation: what happens if
> someone doesn't use this type?
>
>
> 4. Fig 3.1.2
> In the text that introduces there should be a reminder on why the node
> spTarget1 is a non-resolvable resource (I suppose a pointer on the
> discussion on fragment URIS could help).
> The label of the node "target1" is quite confusing, as this node is supposed
> to be a Source.
>
>
> 5. Selector class
> Same question as in #3 (and as for other types of specifiers; but I'll stop
> at this one): is this class needed? I see that it's not used in Fig. 3.2.
>
>
> 6. Resolvability of Selectors, States, etc.
> Unless I'm overlooking something, I feel that not enough is said on why
> these resources are described as having non-resolvable URIs in the example
> graphs.
>
>
> 7. Query in 3.2: "a resource" -> "any resource"
>
>
> 8. Fragment Selectors vs. Range Selectors
> It seems there is overlap between some Range Selectors and some Fragment
> ones. For example, I suppose that Fragment Selectors using RFC5147 will be
> equivalent to a family of Text position selectors.
> I know that OA needs both types, and the specification of every equivalence
> is certainly out of scope. Yet a reader may be puzzled about which one they
> have to choose of several practically equivalent alternatives. And data
> consumers may be harmed down the stream, if a same thing can have two
> representations.
>
>
> 9. Text normalization
> 3.2.2.1 (Text Position selectors) says the text should be normalized before
> counting characters. Fine, but:
> - is it a SHOULD?
> - if yes, could there be a link that tells implementers what kind of
> normalization it is?
>
>
> 10. Fig 3.3.2
> A specific header request would be really helpful, instead of "headers1".
>
>
> 11. Levels of Style properties
> I'm certainly missing an explanation somewhere, but at this point it's still
> not very clear to me from the text, why oa:styledBy is attached to the
> Annotation resource, while oa:styleClass is attached to a specific resource.
> It seems to me that having all predicates associated with specific resources
> would make more sense. It would also fit better the whole idea of Specifiers
> that belong to the body or the target level.
>
>
> 12. Levels of Scopes
> The current proposal where oa:hasScope is attached to specific resources
> makes much sense. Cases where there are multiple specific resources and/or
> scopes involved in an annotation come to mind...
> But the text falls quite short on explaining this. Instead, it includes
> expressions that could lead to confusion, such "It is sometimes important
> for an Annotation to capture the context in which it was made" and "As such
> scoping information is only true for a particular Annotation". Granted,
> there's not wrong, it's just that they can be misleading for readers.
>
>
> 13. Body/target vs. Specific resource, re-loaded
> 3.5 features the sentence: "it must be attached to a Specific Resource, and
> not to the Body or Target directly." while Fig 3.5 has (as flagged earlier)
> a node labeled "target1" as the Source. This is very confusing, because of
> course it is spTarget1 that is the object of oa:hasTarget.
> Following comment 4, I'd recommend to replace target1 by source1 in Fig.3.5
> and replace the problematic sentence by
> "it must be attached to a Specific Resource (Body or Target), and not to the
> Source directly."
> and then update the rest of 3.5.
> I suppose there are a couple of places in the Module where such re-wording
> has to be done.
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 00:28:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 January 2013 00:28:07 GMT