- 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