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 
outlined](https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-159906649).
 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 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-159909503
 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