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

Re: May a Specific Resource be object of the oa:hasScope relationship ?

From: Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:46:04 +0100
Message-ID: <514728AC.4080601@bgbm.org>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
CC: public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi Rob,

hmm, you're right. It does not really solve my problem. But may be, I 
can live with a certain level of weakness.

So, if I want to keep may construction using oa:hasScope to express my 
use case, what I get is only a weak relationship between the scoped body 
and the sptarget.
It says something like, "when the annotator created that body, he was 
examining the part of the document which was selected within the scoped 
sptarget."
Then, it is up to the application how it will interpret that kind of 
"hint". It is up to the application to decide, if it wants to respect 
the potential intentions of the annotator creating that body while 
examining a specific part of the target. Or, to not respect them and 
then possibly visualize some nonsense to the client user.

Is that a correct interpretation of what I would get if i kept my 
construction like it is ?

Lutz



> Hi Lutz :)
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Lutz Suhrbier <l.suhrbier@bgbm.org> wrote:
>> Only regarding choices, I understood that at maximum one of the specific
>> resources can be selected by the client application. Your definition below
>> sounds like it may be more than one ?
> On a semantic level they all apply, but the importance is that you
> only have to display one of them.  For example, it's true that the
> English version and the French version of a comment both apply to the
> target, but you only need to show one of them to the user as they have
> equivalent content.
>
>
>> As in my use case, all SpTargets must be applied, and also all SpBodies must
>> be applied as well, the Composite appears to be the right concept to express
>> this.
> Yes, but semantically the body composite applies to the target
> composite. You need to have all of the resources in each composite in
> order for the annotation to make sense.
>  From the spec:  "A Composite is a set of resources that are all
> required for an Annotation to be correctly interpreted."
>
> So the body composite is a set of resources that, as a set, annotates
> the target.
>
>
>> What's about the interpretation of oa:hasContext related to a SpTarget
>> within SpBodies in general, and within SpBodies in a Composite in
>> particular.
> There isn't any special interpretation of hasScope for when the
> subject and/or object also have roles in particular annotations.
>
> The, admittedly quite fuzzy and intentionally so, description from the
> spec is that hasScope is "... to capture the context in which it was
> made, in terms of the resources that the annotator was viewing or
> using at the time" and that it does not make the relationship
> expressed by the annotation valid only with the resources that were
> being viewed.
>
> So if you have an image with hasScope to a web page as the target.
> And the comment is "I like this image", that just says that the image
> appears within the page, and that you like the image, not that you
> like (the image in the page).
>
>> the image specified in the SpTarget must be seen by the client application
>> in the context of the web page.
> The spec says:
> "This does NOT imply an assertion that the annotation is only valid
> for the image in the context of that page, it just records that the
> page was being viewed."
> (caps added for emphasis)
>
> Which definitely could be clearer, of course.
>
>> If I related now a Body to a SpTarget, than it would mean that
>> the content of that body must be seen within the context of that SpTarget,
>> or not ?
> Thus, no :(
>
> Hope that ... sort of ... helps, even if it doesn't solve the problem?
>
> Rob
>
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 14:46:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 18 March 2013 14:46:35 GMT