- From: asmusf via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 16:42:30 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
On 5/23/2016 9:27 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > > Thanks @r12a <https://github.com/r12a> for writing all this down. And, > at the moment, I am torn. > > * > > On the one hand, I think that the situation would become indeed > much clearer if a body (more exactly, in our terminology, a > Specific Resource or a Textual Body describing a body) would > indeed use 0 or one |language| tag. In case the use case is to > have different body resources out there that are conceptually > equivalent but are in different languages, then we can use Choice > or some of the (newly re-established) composites, to separate them > from one another. This makes the model clean, and also covers the > problems @r12a <https://github.com/r12a> has. > > * > > On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact that, out there, > there are messy resources that we want to annotate; @gsergiu > <https://github.com/gsergiu> has clearly indicated that he is > facing such a situation. Texts may be out there that /do/ mix > languages (whether we like it or not), and the only way of > conveying this information in an annotation is to allow for more > than one languages. > > I believe the way forward is to say something like: "an annotation > SHOULD have zero or one language terms, and MAY have more than 1 in > exceptional cases." @gsergiu <https://github.com/gsergiu>'s use case > may be quoted in an informal note where the MAY comes into effect, but > we should also note that implementations/users should really try to > use one language, because otherwise problems may occur. > > And stop there... > (I didn't see this text on GitHub, so I'm copying the message I am replying to). SHOULD already implies that one has a good reason for a different choice, so I don't think "exceptional" is either useful or necessary. The *original language* had it right: "The Body or Target SHOULD have exactly 1 language associated with it, but MAY have 0 or more." As this seemed contradictory to some, perhaps what is needed is an editorial fix, that is, an example: "The Body or Target SHOULD have exactly 1 language associated with it, but MAY have 0 or more, for example if the language cannot be identified or the resource contains a mix of languages." (My example for "0" may not be what was intended, so just fix accordingly). -- GitHub Notification of comment by asmusf Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/213#issuecomment-221027103 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 23 May 2016 16:42:32 UTC