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

Re: New Draft comments: Specific Resources

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:14:08 +0100
Message-ID: <5102A140.7050807@few.vu.nl>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Rob,

Browsing through your other answers


> __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?


Yes, I don't see any harm either. It would be good though to reflect what you're telling in the first paragraph. Especially if, as I noted, some examples in the document (Fig. 3.2.) don't use the classes.
The alternative is that the example use the classes.



> __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.


Yes, I understand the concern to keep the same identifiers for the same resource. But here the resource is not the target anymore, so this is *really* confusing. Better have the resources given fake identifiers that reflect what they are (e.g., "document") than their 'function' in the graph, especially when this function change from one graph to the other!
Note that switching to more "real" examples (as suggested hinted a couple of times) may alleviate this kind of issue.


> __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.


Fair enough; I had not asked the issue to be fixed ;-)
Would you fancy a little acknowledgement in the text? This could be an opportunity to also flag the issue for specific groups to solve it later.
I'd suggest
[
Readers should be aware that the current OA model allows several equivalent options for defining several kinds of specific resource. For example, it is possible to also express FragmentSelectors using RFC5147's #char as TextPositionSelectors using oa:start and oa:end. While this is not optimal from an interoperability perspective, this could not be avoided for making the OA model flexible <emph>and</emph> compatible with existing approaches. We recommend communities having to manage such alternatives to implement (and share) dedicated bridging strategies, e.g. in the form of data conversion rules.
]

Antoine


>
> 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 Friday, 25 January 2013 16:36:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 January 2013 16:36:48 GMT