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: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:16:28 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-159909503-1448543786-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Ok, I see that I cannot really convince you guys, and I do not want to
 drag this on indefinitely. Let me propose a compromise solution. More
 exactly a compromise solution with sub sub-alternatives.

The main point is: we leave everything mostly as it is, and we also 
publish a Note on how these terms can be used outside of the 
Annotation domain. That note would, essentially, include 
(non-normatively, because it is a note) the definition of the 
``Selector`` classes in such a way that the document would stand by 
itself for non-Annotation usage. (I am not sure whether that document 
would deal with RDF/Turtle, or only JSON-LD; probably the latter.)

To be a bit more precise, I see the following alternatives to realize 
that (beyond writing the note itself).

1. Both the RDF and JSON documents stay as it is.
2. The ``Selector`` class, as well as the relevant properties, go into
 a separate namespace. The RDF document has to change a little bit 
accordingly, the JSON document stays as it is (except for a tiny 
change in the ``@context`` file).
3. Like alternative 2, but the note would also include the definition 
of ``SelectedResource`` class that is a *superclass* of 
``SelectedResource``, as well as the super properties for ``source`` 
and ``select``. That means that note would have an RDF aspect defining
 those extra vocabulary items, but it is non-normative.
4. The RDF document includes the ``SelectedResource`` class in the 
``Selector`` namespace, plus the ``source`` and ``select`` attribute, 
and the ``SpecificResource`` becomes a subclass of 
``SelectedResource``. The RDF vocabulary changes a bit, but not 
significantly; the JSON document stays as it is (except for a tiny 
change in the ``@context`` file).

Obviously, alts. 3 and 4 are, semantically, identical, and implement 
[the approach I 
 Alternative 4 is clean; alternative 3 pushes the corpse entirely to 
the separate note. Both are doable.

Because it is a Note, we have the entire life span of the group to 
write and publish it. Obviously, putting my money (well, time, rather)
 where my mouth is, I would take on the responsibility for it.

GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at 
 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2015 13:16:31 UTC

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