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

Re: Annotation Concept vs Document (was Level 1 comments)

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:45:12 +0100
Message-ID: <5107EE88.2080007@few.vu.nl>
CC: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Rob,


> I think we're close to straying off topic and would propose that we
> take this off list :)



OK. So oa:Annotations are difficult to map to ore:Aggregations for serious reasons. These may be caused because ORE has come with too specific definitions, but this is not really OA's business.

Just on this one, which seems to impact OA:


>>> * The Proxy construction for talking about the
>>> resource-in-the-context-of-the-Annotation was not especially liked.
>>> This would be the equivalent of a Specific Resource that we have now.
>>
>> I would disagree. In all examples I can think ok, the resources considered
>> by the annotation are described in "objective" terms, not "specific to the
>> annotation at hand". A text body and an image target do not change across
>> context.
>
> It was seen somewhat as the equivalent of reifying annotea's context predicate.
>
> Eg there is some context described by the proxy in which the use of
> the Source resource takes place.
> And that context could include state, segment of interest, style [not
> that we had it then] etc.
>
> So it could be read as:  In the context of the annotation, I'm
> referring to this segment of the resource.


Yes but a segment/state resource is not an annotation-specific perspective of one the source. It's objectively defined, and can be re-used across annotations. In fact I'm eager to re-visit a too quick interpretation yesterday (below). A Styled resource is also objective in a way: two annotations targeting two resources with different styles are indeed targeting two plainly different resources.


>> Hmm, in fact there is a problem: the styles. These can be
>> annotation-specific. On the other hand, the OA spec seems to ignore happily
>> to ignore the issue of reconciling annotations that would style differently
>> a same body or target. So I'm not sure why we should consider proxies, when
>> aligning annotations to ORE... Unless you want to embark on fixing the issue
>> in OA as it is now ;-)
>
> handwave, mumble, cough...   :)
>
> We could add text to the paragraph starting "When rendering a Specific
> Resource,...":
>
> If a Specific Resource has a styleClass, but no such class is
> described by a CssStyle attached to the Annotation, then the
> styleClass MUST be silently ignored.
>


In addition to the lack of need for changing the doc (see above), I think this would have solved the issue: my problem was in fact if two annotations were targetting one resource with two different styles, and these two annotations have each their CssStyle.
But as I understand now, the "one resource with two different styles" should actually be two resources (derived from the same segment).

Sorry for the mess,

Antoine
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 15:45:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 January 2013 15:45:45 GMT