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 17:07:13 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-173979757-1453482430-sysbot+gh@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

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