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

Specific Resource Semantics

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:30:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUFo6x1nkZBSwss9jmECH7_gr8NJnuGzAC3Zr-TVSCo6Yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
This is somewhat a semantics argument, but one that is important to
get right.  It derives from Antoine and Stian's questions about the
definition of Specific Resources, Specifiers and the "workflow"
diagram (3.1.1)


The question is which relationships and properties *define* the nature
of the Specific Resource, and which are just informational or
contextual (if any).
The spec at the moment treats Style and Scope as annotation specific
information about the specific resource, but they somehow don't define
it.

This leads to an issue with the global nature of triples, as if you
reuse the specific resource, then it still inherits the scope and
style. As the second annotation to use the specific resource would get
the scope and style, they seem to be defining properties, not specific
to the annotation.  This brought up Antoine's comments about ORE
Proxies, for example.

Secondly, if scope and style do not define the nature of a specific
resource, then you should not need to create multiple specific
resources with the same State and Selector, just to have two targets
which are about the same segment with two different scopes or styles.
For example, a comment: The overpainting of the illumination is much
clearer with the red overlay than the blue. (two targets, each being
the same area of an image, with a red style and a blue style)

Thirdly, we require a specific resource to have a style or a scope.
If only scope and style define the specific resource, then it has no
definition in this case.


So ... my proposal is to modify the specific resources module,
primarily section 3.1,  to be clear that style and scope are important
aspects that are carried across the re-use of specific resources.  The
model remains exactly the same, just the definitions change slightly.

Thoughts?

Rob
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:30:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:31:01 GMT