Re: Last draft comment: Specifiers and Specific Resources

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> 1. "The Style resource is linked from the Annotation, however its only
> implementation (oa:CssStyle) requires the Specific Resource to have
> additional information."
>
> I'd move this one to section 3.4. It's quite specific for an introduction,
> and makes the introduction depending on later changes on details.

Sure. Done.

> We had the discussion in [1] and I'm still uneasy with the fact that the
> spec does not explicit sort out in 3.4 how an annotation would handle
> different styles that are each used by one specific resource of a same
> annotation.

True. Either styledBy should have 0..* cardinality, or the
multiplicity constructs should say that they can be the object of
styledBy.
However it brings up ordering questions as to which conflicting style
definition in multiple Style resources would take precedence... this
would be solved with either a Choice or a List construction, so I've
added styledBy to the multiplicity document.


> And the end of Stian's email [2] hints that there could be
> styles that apply to no specific resources. While I'm not calling for the
> spec to solve these issues now - as Stian puts it, it's even not sure they
> would happen. I'd just advise against putting dependencies on this in the
> text outside of section 3.4. And perhaps an editor's note in that section
> would be good to address readers' doubts, if just to say that the current
> situation may not answer all implementation issues on the matter.

It might happen when the annotation creation client always associates
a default style with the Annotation, but none of the bodies/targets
have a styleClass property.  Doesn't seem like a big deal?


> 2. "The scope, such as a webpage containing the target image, is linked with
> oa:hasScope and does not convey a validity test for the annotation, just
> that the web page was being viewed when the Annotation was created."

> We should not mention a "validity test" notion here. Unless I've missed
> anything, this is the first (and only?) time it appears in the entire
> documentation. Plus, if you keep it, then I'll have to ask either what such
> test mean, or why scopes would not convey it. And I'm not sure any of us
> wants this ;-)

:) I just deleted these two sentences and merged the more general
descriptions with the previous paragraph.



> 3. " For example, it is possible to use URIs with fragments directly, as in
> the Core document, the FragmentSelector class, for rectangular areas either
> media fragments or the SvgSelector and for plain text documents either RFC
> 5147 or the Text Selectors. "
>
> This sentence could do with extra punctuation - or some splitting, as you
> see fit.

Agreed. Fixed.

Rob

Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 00:34:18 UTC