W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > November 2016

Re: List of Selectors (was: Re: Publication request: 2 documents for CR publication on the 22nd of November)

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 08:38:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CABevsUFq+tD3otmcdONi2=BVZUvR5o=43HT0CM6NrVGuda=JcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>
Cc: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Ahh, gotcha.

And the concern is that although there can be multiple selectors referenced
from a specific resource, that if you transform it through RDF, you lose
the order?  Where the order is the server's preference, perhaps based on
degree of accuracy or fidelity of the original selection?

Rob


On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>
wrote:

> Well. The meaning in this case is different. It's a list of selectors to
> *attempt* in order. They don't refine each other. They're definitions of
> the same selection "intention" but using different selection strategies.
>
>
> Think:
>
>  - try RangeSelector--if it succeeds, stop.
>
>  - otherwise, try TextQuoteSelector.
>
>
> The RangeSelector, being more specific to the markup/rendering won't work
> on a PDF version of the content (for instance), but TextQuoteSelector
> would...and on the text/plain, etc.
>
>
> See the objective?
>
>
> I guess the only option (afaik) is to use the Open Annotation classes and
> consider these "extended" Web Annotations to be incompatible with a
> "baseline" Web Annotation implementation?
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> --
>
> http://bigbluehat.com/
>
> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 28, 2016 10:53:18 AM
> *To:* Benjamin Young
> *Cc:* Ivan Herman; Tim Cole; Shane McCarron; W3C Public Annotation List
> *Subject:* Re: Publication request: 2 documents for CR publication on the
> 22nd of November
>
>
> 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
>



-- 
Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2016 16:39:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:50 UTC