Re: [web-annotation] Definitions of Specific Resources: Example

1&2 Well .. there is the principle in softare development, that the 
tester should not be the same person as the developer. It is common 
that fixing isues have side effects, in which case the isues are set 
back to "not fixed" status. I don't have the power to do this, but 
maybe you have it... if you find that my reports/arguments are 
correct. (Creating a new issues on the same topic is not the 
recommended way to handle such situations) 

3. I agree that is what the class SpecificResourse is ... only that 
the name of the class is missleading. 
This class is the class of the body and not of the web resource. The 
body is not the resource.

You will probalby not agree with that but there are arguments already 
written in the current version of the draft:
a) External Web Reource:  @id `Bodies or Targets which are External 
Web Resources MUST have exactly 1 id with the value of the resource's 
URI.` 

Specific Reource: id `A Specific Resource MAY have exactly 1 URI that 
identifies it.`

I think that there is the contradiction in these definitions, the 
Specific class cannot restrict the "definition" from the Generic 
class. So ... external web resources must have an id and consequently,
  Anything that may not have an @id is not a Web Resource!

b) All examples in the SpecificResources don't have an @id and 
consequently none of them is a (Web)Resource ! (they are simply 
sub-properties of the Annotation which is a web resource as it has an 
@id)

c) I think I complained about this before, but the definition of the 
SpecificResource class doesn't really makes sense:
```
SpecificRerouce: The class for Specific Resources
The SpecificResource class SHOULD be associated with a Specific 
Resource
```
Of course that a SpecificResource is a class of a Specific 
Resource.... however it is not clear at all ... id the Specific 
Resource can be a Target, A Body or an ExternalWebResource? ...

d) source: ```
The relationship between a Specific Resource and the resource that it 
is a more specific representation of.
There MUST be exactly 1 source relationship associated with a Specific
 Resource. The source resource MAY be described in detail as in the 
core data model or be just the resource's URI. 
```
 As I said before ... the Specific Resource is not a web resource as 
it doesn't have an id, it is only a "view" of a part of a web resource
 (which actually is embedded in the annotation)

e) If the SpecificResources are WebResources, why don't they have a 
language and format ... as defined in the core model of the 
WebResource? The correct answer is .. because they are not 
WebResources!

PS: I appologize if I'm harsh again ... but I know it is not easy to 
convince people at this stage, that Targets and Bodies have relations 
to Web Resources, but they are not web resources. This mistake comes 
from the minified version where 
body: "mywebsite.com"
should be interpreted as 
body:{ resource: {@id: "mywebsite.com"}}
and not as body:{@id: "mywebsite.com#title"}

... as the later could be in fact a minimized version of the following
body:{
@id: "mywebsite.com#title",
resource:{@id:"mywebsite.com"}
selector:{ 
type: "FragmentSelector",
value:"The title of my website"
}

}
 




-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by gsergiu
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/138#issuecomment-188514776
 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 23:33:34 UTC