- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 07:53:18 -0800
- To: Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Tim Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu>, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABevsUEfxV3vQ+GB=p_=e8w=+ObrsTgjSgr6RjDbG=rQwcXHPQ@mail.gmail.com>
A list of selectors to be processed in order should use refinedBy now, instead of a List. R On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com> wrote: > So...given that these (Composite, Independents, and List) are coming out, > what does someone intending to use them need to do? > > > I have examples of Wiley-derived annotations that currently use List to > express a list (heh) of selectors which are intended to be processed in > order. > > > I didn't submit those examples as there were several other bugs with > them--the general shape is spot-on, but someone use idiosyncratic values > for "type" (Java classes or some such... >_>). > > > I could fix them by hand--as bugs for those issues have been reported and > I hope will be in progress soon. However, I'm also guessing it's "too > little; too late?" > > Happy Monday, all, > > Benjamin > > > -- > > http://bigbluehat.com/ > > http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung > ------------------------------ > *From:* Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 23, 2016 3:11:09 AM > *To:* Robert Sanderson > *Cc:* Tim Cole; Shane McCarron; W3C Public Annotation List > > *Subject:* Re: Publication request: 2 documents for CR publication on the > 22nd of November > > > On 22 Nov 2016, at 21:54, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't think we should leave them in the context document. I took them > out, but the re-revision may have resulted in the wrong version getting put > into ns/ > > The most recent version is: > > https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/blob/gh-pages/jsonld/anno.jsonld > > > As an aside, should I update the /ns file with this one? We may want to > have an agreement on the issue… > > Ivan > > > > which doesn't have them. > > R > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu> > wrote: > >> Since the model features moved to informative appendix of the model were >> optional (i.e., may or should rather than must), I do not believe we need >> to rearrange any of the Annotation model tests. >> >> >> >> HOWEVER, the json keys Composite, Independents, and List are no longer in >> our ontologies, although they are still present in our JSON-LD context >> document, and do appear in informative 'Proposed Definitions' appendix in >> the Vocab Rec. So do we want to remove the handful of tests that do >> reference these keys? Thoughts? Personally, if we're going to leave these >> keys in our context document, I'd suggest leaving the tests in place as a >> convenience for developers going forward. If we decide to remove these >> three keys from our context document then we probably should remove the >> tests. >> >> >> >> We definitely will need to update the test to Exit criteria mapping and >> the references to CR. >> >> >> >> -Tim Cole >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:20 AM >> *To:* Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> >> *Cc:* W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org> >> >> *Subject:* Re: Publication request: 2 documents for CR publication on >> the 22nd of November >> >> >> >> From my point of view: >> >> >> >> - some tests may have to pushed down to the optional spaces >> >> - the corresponding mapping table should be changed >> >> - the references to the CR should be updated:-) >> >> >> >> Ivan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22 Nov 2016, at 15:29, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote: >> >> >> >> Do we need to make any changes to the test suites? >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >> FYI >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> >> *From: *Denis Ah-Kang <denis@w3.org> >> >> *Subject: Re: Publication request: 2 documents for CR publication on the >> 22nd of November* >> >> *Date: *22 November 2016 at 10:34:31 GMT+1 >> >> *To: *Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, webreq <webreq@w3.org> >> >> *Cc: *W3C Communication Team <w3t-comm@w3.org>, Xueyuan Jia (贾雪远) < >> xueyuan@w3.org>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Tim Cole < >> t-cole3@illinois.edu>, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org> >> >> *X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: *No, score=-9.8 >> >> *Message-Id: *<24995815-01a7-e3c9-dd04-b5b20fb6b53b@w3.org> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> The documents have been published on http://www.w3.org/TR/. >> >> Regards, >> >> Denis >> >> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Technical Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Shane McCarron >> >> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops >> >> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Technical Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Rob Sanderson > Semantic Architect > The Getty Trust > Los Angeles, CA 90049 > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Technical Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > > -- Rob Sanderson Semantic Architect The Getty Trust Los Angeles, CA 90049
Received on Monday, 28 November 2016 15:53:54 UTC