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: Kanai, Takeshi <Takeshi.Kanai@sony.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:57:09 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
CC: Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E72CF575142F6D4196D04D303E0462DE04FAD67E@JPYOKXMS120.jp.sony.com>
Benjamin,

I would like to make sure how the skipped selector will be updated, when the fallback selector got updates.
I’m afraid that Client A which does not know about RangeSelector can only update TextQuoteSelector, and it makes Client B which knows about RangeSelector confused.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Takeshi Kanai

From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 5:49 AM
To: Robert Sanderson
Cc: Benjamin Young; W3C Public Annotation List
Subject: Re: List of Selectors (was: Re: Publication request: 2 documents for CR publication on the 22nd of November)

Sorry guys, I have only my mobile here, I cannot look up the details. But what is the problem using the good old RDF list?

However, at this point, I believe we should put it into a v2 bag. We cannot add new features.

Ivan

----
Ivan Herman
+31 641044153

(Written on my mobile. Excuses for brevity and frequent misspellings...)



On 29 Nov 2016, at 17:38, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com<mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:ivan@w3.org>]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:20 AM
To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io<mailto:shane@spec-ops.io>>
Cc: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:
FYI

Begin forwarded message:

From: Denis Ah-Kang <denis@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:ivan@w3.org>>, webreq <webreq@w3.org<mailto:webreq@w3.org>>
Cc: W3C Communication Team <w3t-comm@w3.org<mailto:w3t-comm@w3.org>>, Xueyuan Jia (贾雪远) <xueyuan@w3.org<mailto:xueyuan@w3.org>>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com<mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>>, Tim Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu<mailto:t-cole3@illinois.edu>>, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org<mailto:coralie@w3.org>>
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8
Message-Id: <24995815-01a7-e3c9-dd04-b5b20fb6b53b@w3.org<mailto: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<tel:%2B31-641044153>
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<tel:%2B31-641044153>
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<tel:%2B31-641044153>
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 Wednesday, 30 November 2016 01:01:40 UTC

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