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: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:43:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CABevsUGdd4R_X5TncBTNDUkO5mfi=XdjxzbTBzOV3Xinxz3xvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>
Cc: "Kanai, Takeshi" <Takeshi.Kanai@sony.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Unless you store the data as native RDF, you could just have the order in
the JSON list. The model doesn't support it, but the serialization does?
Not a very satisfying solution, but a workaround until we have more
experience and a new WG?

R

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>
wrote:

> Interesting quest as all ways, Takeshi. :)
>
> In the case of updating, it's likely up to the system doing the updating
> whether or not it preserves the original--only "editing" the bits it
> understands--or whether it loads the whole thing into its own internal
> representation and then outputs what it understands as a Web Annotation.
>
> Ideally, it'd keep the things it doesn't understand around (as they'd
> still be valid statements potentially for others), but I'm also confident
> we didn't describe that scenario sufficiently to prevent stuff being
> dropped/removed by others...
>
> Anyone up for a new WG? ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Benjamin
>
>
> --
>
> http://bigbluehat.com/
>
> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Kanai, Takeshi <Takeshi.Kanai@sony.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2016 7:57:09 PM
> *To:* Ivan Herman; 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)
>
>
> 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 <+31%206%2041044153>
>
>
>
> (Written on my mobile. Excuses for brevity and frequent misspellings...)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Nov 2016, at 17:38, Robert Sanderson <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>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 16:44:27 UTC

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