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

Re: [web-annotation] Multiple Selectors

From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 06:21:19 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-173822948-1453443678-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
 @hugomanguinhas,

> Hi Ivan,
> with opening the domain, I meant to say to not restrict the domain 
for oa:hasSelector to resources of the type oa:SpecificResource, but 
also resources of type oa:Selector... so that it can be reused 
recursively.
> 
I understand. Putting an RDF hat on: if we want to formally define 
something a bit more general, while still wanting to make a tight 
definition in terms of RDF schemas or so, this may lead to the 
necessity to define the union of two classes as the domain for the 
property. Although my OWL knowledge has become a bit rusty by now, 
isn't it correct that this can be expressed correctly in OWL only? Do 
we want to go down the line of of using OWL for the specification of 
our vocabulary (afaik, this is not the case at this point).

I may be wrong.

> about the alternative option, I don't see it much different and it 
is a pattern quite often used in functional languages... it is as 
"verbose" as the others with the advantage of not adding more 
constructs or patterns to the model.
> 
> ...but the other one proposed, is also alright.
> 
Actually… I am not really sure I understand the second option any 
more. Looking at your proposal:

```jsonld
{
  "@type": "SpecificResource",
  "selector": {
      "@type": "TextPositionSelector",
      "start": 5, // relative to index.html#namedSection
      "end": 28
  },
  "source": {
    "@type": "SpecificResource",
    "selector": {
      "@type": "FragmentSelector",
      "value": "namedSection",
    }
  }
}
```

isn't it correct that there is a missing term, namely

```jsonld
  "source": {
    "@type": "SpecificResource",
    "source" : "THE URL OF THE 'REAL' RESOURCE",
    "selector": {
      "@type": "FragmentSelector",
      "value": "namedSection",
    }
  }
```

ie, we have to put the reference to the 'starting' URL somewhere. Is 
that allowed? Doesn't this contradict to the domain specification of 
"source"? The range of "hasSelector" is "Selector", whereas the domain
 of "hasSource" is "SpecificResource"… Ie, we may have the same issue 
with the naming as we have with the original proposal.
 




-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/93#issuecomment-173822948
 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 22 January 2016 06:21:22 UTC

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