Re: [web-annotation] value or text on the definition of an SVG selector

> It's consistent with the embedded content pattern, rather than the 
values in selectors pattern. The use of text here is because we used 
to use Content in RDF to embed the SVG resource's representation.
Well, that is past. Not relevant any more for this version...
> The same with the CSS Style. I think this is correct, rather than 
value ... we're embedding the content of the representation into the 
graph, rather than providing a stand alone value that is not a 

I do not find this argument convincing. For the selector, the *role* 
of the textual svg content is the same as, say, the xpath content for 
the XPath Selector: it is the value that governs the selection for an 
XPath selection. The fact that we are talking about some content that,
 *in other contexts* is interpretable as a stand alone image, is 

Note that the "Content" class ('pattern', if you refer to) appears 
twice. One is the SVG Selector, the other is Style (I admit I did not 
look at the latter for my comment). But for Style we use `value` and 
not `text`, so we _are_ inconsistent. B.t.w., in the Style element 
there is also a `format` argument, that is irrelevant or, more 
exactly, superfluous, because we are talking about a CssStylesheet 

I have the impression that the Content class itself should be 
therefore removed from the model altogether, and simplify both usages.
 It is an overcomplication without any benefit that I would see.

> If there isn't an id, then it's just a blank node. So long as the 
representation is available from the URI in id, I don't see a problem.
I am not sure what you refer to.

> That said I do see the point about type-jacking. We solved that 
already for Semantic Tags where the resources were very likely not to 
be ours. On the other hand, here it seems that finding an SVG document
 in the wild that happened to express the right area for the selection
 is so improbable as to not be worth worrying about?
It is again a matter of consistency. The Open Web Assumption has 
already directed our deliberation in the past, and we decided to be 
consistent with it (see our discussion on roles). We should apply the 
same here.

Bottom line: I stand by my original proposal...

GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at
 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 28 March 2016 09:54:05 UTC