W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > April 2016

Re: [web-annotation] Model should allow multiple Selectors per SpecificResource

From: tbdinesh via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 15:48:00 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-215974460-1462031259-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I guess leaving it at SHOULD makes sense.

Seeing multiple selection as not-options but as alternates is good 
And in the presence of state, we can even think of them as options as 
a use

Imagining a scenario:
say we have linguistic states
such as en-state, nl-state, .. kn-state

then the alternates would be specific to the language
with say the quoted-text options being "one must", "een moet", ..

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Ivan Herman 

> @azaroth42 <https://github.com/azaroth42>:
> But... doesn't that leads to interoperability issues. You pick, 
> one and I pick the other? What is the use case for this?
> The idea is that the more you specify, the more likely it is that 
one will
> continue to work and that clever clients can use the set to be even 
> precise. For example, if you use just TextPosition, you have no way 
to tell
> that the document changed, but it's as precise a way as possible 
when the
> document is static. So if there's also a TextQuote selector, then 
you can
> use that to either find the selection (even though it's maybe slower
> harder), or to verify that the content at the specified position is 
> same.
> This is towards robustness of anchors, but clearly not the entire 
> Second use case is if one system implements only TextQuote, then you
> use the annotation, whereas if you supplied just a complex 
RangeSelector of
> XPathSelectors, that might be more accurate and faster ... but 
worthless to
> the simpler implementation of just the Quote pattern. Related to 
this is if
> there are new, super awesome selectors that are developed in 
> communities, it would be good to at least provide one of the 
selectors from
> the model for systems outside that community.
> Ok, these are all good issues. I believe the underlying thought is 
that if
> there are two selectors (or a state and a selector, reflecting to 
> #205 <https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/205>? Or is that 
> different issue after all?), they *SHOULD (MUST?) select the same 
> .
> My problem is how to spec this. Is this a testable statement for an
> implementation? How would an implementation be sure about this? How 
> ensure interoperability? Or should we just stop by saying 'MUST' and
> the rest to implementations?
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

GitHub Notification of comment by tbdinesh
Please view or discuss this issue at 
 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 30 April 2016 15:48:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:45 UTC