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

Re: [web-annotation] Make Selectors available for the wide world?

From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:41:45 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-159196467-1448354504-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

> On 24 Nov 2015, at 01:00, Rob Sanderson <notifications@github.com> 
> Regarding (1) and (2), I wouldn't mind moving all of section 4 to a 
different namespace, including SpecificResource, State, Selector, 
Style and associated properties. Moving just the Selector classes 
seems meaningless as:
> You still need to have a oa:SpecificResource to attach the 
xxx:Selector to.
That is something that can be expressed in the RDF vocabulary, that I 
do not propose to change. In the JSON view of things like this 
(essentially trying to set the right domain and range) is something 
that is, I presume, a bit hand-waved anyway.

Having a separate document with State, Style, etc, beats the purpose. 
The goal is to make the Selector mechanism available to other, 
non-annotation structures; mixing them in makes the whole exercise 
> You still need to have something in the documentation pointing to 
the selector documentation, and vice versa for the SpecificResource.
I do not see that as a major issue.
> But given the above, I'm overall  to the change as proposed as 
there's no real benefit from adding another namespace, and a not 
trivial amount of work to have Selectors go through the process 
separately from the rest of the model. I would be -0 to extracting the
 entire section.
I agree this does not bring any benefit to strictly the annotation 
work. And we could argue that this is the WG's only purpose in life, 
therefore not do it. Doing it requires a little bit of altruism, so to
 say: recognize that these results of the Working Group in this area 
are, actually, so valuable that they could be used outside the realm 
of the annotation world, ie, the group would help in reuse. It is a 
little bit of extra work for a cosy feeling of making something useful
 to the community at large. We are spending quite a lot of time trying
 to re-use the vocabularies of other WG-s; why can't we offer 
something in return to the outside world?
> And I am strongly  to (3). It's a lot of additional work, and I 
believe technically impossible given the current IETF standards around
 fragments. At the very least it would need the blessing of the TAG 
before starting work.
I can see the problems, as I said before. As a compromise, let us say 
that it is not on Rec track and if, by separating the Selector work, 
somebody can pick this up and run with it, we could do it elsewhere 
or, for a start, we could publish a note about it in the group. 
Depends how far we get with it, without compromising the group's 

GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at 
 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2015 08:41:47 UTC

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