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

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

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 12:11:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtnNh5f6K4dfhtOVxE+0W0qbH2pTm48D8diK9LMZnD89kQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Cole via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Cc: Annotation WG <public-annotation@w3.org>
I think the dctypes at least on the target can be important to
understand what kind of annotations we're talking about.. e.g. an
Image has quite a different kinds of selectors than a Text. The
classes are very broad, and can't reliably be used for mime-type
selection of rendering mechanism. But consider an annotation where the
target has since gone 404 (or is a protected resource) so we can't
check its actual mime type - then it can still be of importance to
understand the annotation body (say a textual comment) if it's about a
dctypes:MovingImage or a dctype:Text - e.g. the comment might say "Too
much violence".

But this assumes you can do it all black and white.. what is the type
of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOpUL_hqNlU ?  If you do it
literally by mime type, it's a text/html. By content it's a video. But
actually.. the target is not particulatly MovingImage as it is one of
those "music on youtube with still image" - so really semantically it
is a dctypes:Sound - "a resource primarily intended to be heard." --
or with a bit of faith - a (representation of) a
https://schema.org/MusicAlbum

So if I say that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOpUL_hqNlU "This is
great, my uncle use to sell this in the 80s" as a comment on this - I
don't mean he used to sell the HTML page or the Youtube video. But I
might be able to select a type that it's Sound or Music or something
like that, and then you would understand, possibly even if the youtube
video goes down (as they often do)

On 19 August 2015 at 23:35, Tim Cole via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org> wrote:
> -0.5 for the current SHOULD for dctypes (Dataset, Image, MovingImage,
> Sound, Text), section 3.2.2 (if this is what you meant in your 6th
> bullet). In my experience, those tasked with providing the dctype will
>  get it wrong a surprising amount of the time (hence need for the
> caveat about when not to use Text). Additionally, these days, dctypes
> like Image and Text are not actionable and so not helpful, e.g., quite
>  likely I will want to treat gif, jp2, svg (all Image) bodies each
> differently in my application, so even if you tell me its Image, I'm
> going to have to check before doing anything. Often you really need
> format (i.e., MIME type) at least to really act on the information
> (even this not always enough), and if I have format than dctype is
> unnecessary. While intuitively some information about the nature of a
> body or target may seem better than none, often I find that it just
> encourages questionable assumptions. We can't (and shouldn't)
> discourage the use of dctype, but neither should we recommend it. My
> two-cents.
>
> Otherwise +1 for the rest of your list and your conclusion.
>
> --
> GitHub Notif of comment by tcole3
> See
> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/67#issuecomment-132810485
>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, eScience Lab
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/    http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 11:12:20 UTC

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