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 
example.
And in the presence of state, we can even think of them as options as 
a use
case.

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 
<notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> @azaroth42 <https://github.com/azaroth42>:
>
> But... doesn't that leads to interoperability issues. You pick, 
randomly,
> 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 
more
> 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
 or
> harder), or to verify that the content at the specified position is 
the
> same.
> This is towards robustness of anchors, but clearly not the entire 
solution.
>
> Second use case is if one system implements only TextQuote, then you
 can
> 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 
different
> 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 
issue
> #205 <https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/205>? Or is that 
a
> different issue after all?), they *SHOULD (MUST?) select the same 
content*
> .
>
> My problem is how to spec this. Is this a testable statement for an
> implementation? How would an implementation be sure about this? How 
to
> ensure interoperability? Or should we just stop by saying 'MUST' and
 leave
> 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
> 
<https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/207#issuecomment-215965681>
>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tbdinesh
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/207#issuecomment-215974460
 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