W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [web-annotation] Dropping type from ... what?

From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 07:03:11 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-132913171-1440054191-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

@azaroth42, you said:
> I propose:
> * Keep Annotation so that systems can know that that it's an 
annotation at all!

I am fine with that.

> * Drop SpecificResource, especially if it's the only valid object of
 hasBody / hasTarget
> * Drop EmbeddedContent and use a specific property rather than 
rdf:value, such as oa:text

I am fine with both

> * Keep Selector, State, Style and Multiplicity subclasses, as 
knowing what sort of thing it is determines how the client will 
process it. Also, it provides flexibility for extension, where further
 communities can feel secure in creating new types.

I presume the ``Selector`` as a class is (almost) never used by 
itself, only through its subclasses. I am fine with that.

For ``States`` I am not sure using, e.g., ``HTTPRequestState`` brings 
too much. I would rather use another property (instead of ``value``) 
to denote the real meat of the state (also to avoid multiplexing 
meaning for a property) and not use the typing. But I am a bit neutral
 on this.

I am also not sure about ``Style``. We have a property called 
``stylesheet``. What additional information do I get if I say:

```
"stylesheet": {
    "@id": "http://example.org/style1",
    "@type": "oa:CssStyle"
  },
```

or even if I say:

```
 "stylesheet": {
    "@id": "http://example.org/style1",
    "@type": ["oa:CssStyle", "oa:EmbeddedContent"],
    "value": ".red { color: red }",
    "format": "text/css"
  },
```

I am afraid none. I would prefer to simply use the "stylesheet" 
properly. We can say that usage of that class is a MAY (because, 
maybe, we will have other types of stylesheets around, though I do not
 really see that coming), but certainly not stronger.

I am fine with the Multiplicity class, I guess this is probably 
necessary.

> * Keep the distinction between human, organization and software 
agents.

Yes, that is probably fine.
 
> * Keep the difference between an Image and a Video so that clients 
how how to render the resource, even if the Annotation doesn't give a 
specific format (which may not be known, and may not be important to 
capture. Is it a jpg or a png? The client doesn't care, it's going to 
put it in an <img> tag regardless)

I am a bit undecided on this. First of all, we do use Dublin Core 
concepts in some places, and we use media types at other places (see 
the reference to "text/css" above). Ie, we do have an inconsistency. I
 also consider @tcole3's argument ompelling, ie, that often media 
types are better.

As you said in another mail, MAY is probably the maximum we should go.
 
> * Tag and SemanticTag will go away anyway.

Yep.

Admin issue: this is actually closely related to issue #61. Should we 
close that one?


-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by iherman
See 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/67#issuecomment-132913171
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2015 07:03:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:39 UTC