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

[web-annotation] Narrow `hasScope` to match `as:scope` and introduct `as:context`

From: BigBlueHat via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:57:39 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-116419534-1447275458-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
BigBlueHat has just created a new issue for 

== Narrow `hasScope` to match `as:scope` and introduct `as:context` ==
Related to #102

Apparently (per @tilgovi), Hypothes.is is using `oa:hasScope` to 
"relate a (arbitrarily deeply nested) reply to the root document 
context of the thread."

Such that a user agent could query an annotation server by the current
 URL and find:

1. all the annotations
2. all the replies to those annotations

Here's how we've defined `hasScope` (note the *or*):
> The relationship between a Specific Resource and the resource that 
provides the scope or context for it in this Annotation.

The includes use case is:
> Zara makes a comment about an image in a particular web page to say 
that it is not the right organization's logo. Her client includes the 
page that the image is being rendered in, however the annotation is 
associated with the image resource itself.

Both this use case and @tilgovi's reply related one would include 
these expected actions by the annotation user agent:
* given the original annotation
* retrieve any resource(s) that are the `target`
  * an image, a reply, the original document
* if there's a `scope` resource, retrieve that/those also
* present the annotations as much as possible within the context of 
their creation

:question: So...the *or* situation works...but should we consider 
separating them into two properties: `scope` and `context`? (read on! 

ActivityStreams 2.0 Vocabulary breaks these concepts into two 
> Identifies one or more entities that represent the total population 
of entities for which the object can considered to be relevant.

> Identifies the context within which the object exists or an activity
 was performed.

Honestly, I've gone 'round and 'round :carousel_horse: on this one... 
Either seems appropriate. One could consider the "larger work" to be 
the "total population of entities for which the object can [sic] 
considered to be relevant" OR one could think of it as "the context 
within which the object exists or an activity was performed." However,
 I do believe that (given those), `context` (as defined in AS2) would 
be more correct for a reply annotation--in that the original document 
may not actually be available when the reply is made...nor even of 
interest to the author of the reply annotation.


See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/109
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 20:57:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:42 UTC