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

[web-annotation] Editorial issues on the model version 2016-01-16

From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:01:42 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-127478447-1453219301-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
iherman has just created a new issue for 

== Editorial issues on the model version 2016-01-16 ==
* [ ] "Fragment URI": is this an official term out there? I do not 
think so. The first sentence in section 3.2.3 does have some sort of a
 definition for this, but it is not clear...
* [ ] The term "External Resource" is used, but it is never properly 
defined... Nor is the term "Web Resource" for that matter. 
* [ ] Related to the two issues above: it may be a good idea to have a
 terminology section up front where we attempt to define terms like 
Fragment URI, external resources, web resources, etc. 
* [ ] We may want to make it explicit that `"body" : "url"` is 
actually a valid shorthand for something like `"body":{"id":"url"}`. 
It just appears in the examples but I did not see anything explicitly 
mentioning it. Actually, this pattern appears elsewhere (e.g., for 
creators): we may want to define the shorthand in general with the 
usage of `@id`. (I guess in Turtle this was an obvious thing, so it is
 for JSON-LD, but we try not to rely on that knowledge...)
* [ ] Section 4.2., and the example, suggests that I may have a 
selector defined somewhere else, with a URI, and refer to that. Ie, it
 can be abstract and user defined. I am fine with this, but it may be 
worth calling that out explicitly (and also making it clear that, most
 of the time, we use embedded objects as selectors...). The same 
comments holds for section 4.3. This may be linked to the previous 
* [ ] I am not sure I like the header "Web Resources". At first 
reading I thought we are talking about something very different than 
in the next section, and then I realized that we are talking about 
different aspects of bodies and targets (through the full of section 
3.2). I am not sure how to name this, though, we may want some 
editorial discussion on this.
* [ ] I do not know what this means: "and is NOT RECOMMENDED for uses 
where the content of the body has any intellectual value" in section 
3.2.5. What do you mean by "intellectual value"?
* [ ] I believe we should use CSS Selector level 3, and not 2.1. This 
is now a Recommendation: 
* [ ] Section 4.2.2: Text Quotation Selector -> Text Quote Selector
* [ ] Section 4.3.1: descriptoin -> description
* [ ] Section 4.4. referring to CSS2 only may be restrictive. Not sure
 what the best reference would be, though, because there is no single 
reference for CSS3. Maybe the CSS snapshot: 
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-2015/ but that is only 2015... Maybe some 
general handweaving referring to any CSS modules that are Recs.
* [ ] Section 5.3.1: the example has a different style (colour)?

Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/140 using your GitHub 
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2016 16:01:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:43 UTC