- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:07:13 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@jjett: I stand corrected on the 'spaghetti' term:-) It was not my intention to be dismissive. Also, thanks for the examples, because I see it more clearly now and I did misunderstand something in the original example of @hugomanguinhas, insofar as the second structure also has some sort of a nesting behaviour. (My, wrong, understanding was that... never mind. Not important.) Which also means that my concern about the range/domain of the properties is also moot. Actually... the fair comparison of the complexities is if we drop the `@type` whenever it can be deduced (or add it everywhere, I do not want to get into this discussion again), in which case the second ("inverted") example becomes even slightly less complex for reading: ```json { "@type": "SpecificResource", "selector": { "@type": "TextPositionSelector", "start": 5, "end": 28 }, "source": { "selector": { "@type": "FragmentSelector", "value": "namedSection" }, "source": { "selector": { "@type": "foo:PageSelector", "value": "desiredPage" }, "source" : { "selector": { "@type": "foo:QuerySelector", "value": "knownItem" }, "source": "http://example.org" } } } } ``` So... I am sold. Sold in the sense that the both patterns are fine and they are on a comparable level of complexity indeed. I do not think we may want to use both patterns, though; but if my understanding is correct the second pattern works out of the box right now, which is a major plus; reducing the number of necessary predicates is a good thing... (Again, apologies for the spaghetti:-) -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/93#issuecomment-173979757 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 22 January 2016 17:07:16 UTC