Re: [web-annotation] Model should allow multiple Selectors per SpecificResource

I see your point, and agree for MAY.

I was trying bring out the diversity of interpretations of "state".
An html-state versus a pdf-state is not very different than an 
versus a kn-state
except maybe for quotable text possibilities - where we assume certain
extractors. Where
as using the linguistic states example was only to simplify the 
usage in the example, although foreseeable in renarration services. In
anycase, it was suggesting that if we assume verifiability, we will 
only be
delegating these ambivalences to another level where it is not as

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Ivan Herman 

> @tbdinesh <> :
> Imagining a scenario:
> say we have linguistic states
> such as en-state, nl-state, .. kn-state
> then the alternates would be specific to the language
> with say the quoted-text options being "one must", "een moet", ..
> Well... this example actually shows the ambivalence of the 
situation: that
> there is no way to check whether a multi-selector usage is correct 
or not.
> Indeed:
>    - If the goal is to annotate a particular, say, quote in a book 
in the
>    sense of quoting from the "work" (say, I want to annotate the 
first chapter
>    of a particular novel) then yes, this example is fine because I 
offer the
>    alternative for various languages.
>    - However, if I want to annotate the translations of a book, ie, 
>    want to make a comment on the Dutch but also the Kannada 
translations, I
>    would think that the example is incorrect, because I should have 
a separate
>    annotation (ie, separate targets with Specific Resources) on the 
>    translations, and not bound into one with a multiple selector.
> There is a fine line between these two, and it may be a kind of a
> judgement call on whether a particular set up is acceptable or not. 
Put it
> another way, whether the two (or more) selectors refer to the same 
> is not an independently verifiable claim...
> Maybe the correct approach is a MAY (as in "multiple selectors MAY 
be used
> if they refer to the same target"), with a note making it clear that
> usage of that particular selection may be different from one 
application to
> the other and may lead to interoperability issues. I can live with 
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

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

Received on Sunday, 1 May 2016 08:28:21 UTC