W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

Re: New Draft comments: Specific Resources

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:39:48 +0100
Message-ID: <51010164.30203@few.vu.nl>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Stian,

> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Antoine Isaac<aisaac@few.vu.nl>  wrote:
>> 1. Positioning of Rendering
>> Does Rendering really fit a section on Specific Resources? States and
>> Selectors are about restricting the "extent" of a resource being annotated.
>> But Styles seem quite different beasts. This is in fact quite explicit in
>> Fig 3.1.1 that positions "Specific Resource before styling. Bar comment 11,
>> there's also the quite puzzling fact that oa:styledBy is attached to an
>> Annotation resource, not to a specific body or target.
>> So I'd suggest to move Styles in their own module. *Or* to label the module
>> as "Specifiers". Indeed, for a reason that I'm entirely grasping,
>> "specifiers" include more than what is needed to produce Specific Resources;
>> that could have a nice effect of fitting better the entire module as it is
>> defined now.
> We discussed this in Boston I think - the thing is that styling could
> have more or less semantic meaning depending on the annotation - for
> instance an annotation tool could let the user draw on a resource, and
> then in an annotation body the user might say "The circled part is
> important for the area coloured blue" (where the two areas are two
> specific resources using svg shape selectors, with colouring added by
> style) . Hence to understand the annotation it is best to apply the
> styles.
> However I agree in that styles do not make the resource "more
> specific" - it is more of a kind of modularity. So your suggestion is
> to simply rename the chapter to "Specifiers" and keep the classname
> oa:SpecificResource? (as styles are attached to annotation) I can +1
> that.

This was indeed my suggestion. I'm not fond of the oa:SpecificResource class in the first place, see other comments. But at least we'd convey the message that specifiers can function differently from selectors.

>> Fig 3.1.1 and many sentences in the text around it (e.g., "then a Selector
>> describes", "this chain") hint that there is a mandatory flow of
>> state-selector-style.
> Agreed - this text should be softened to highlight that this is the
> preferred way to interpret the specific resource and styles for
> traditional rendering, but that agents MAY choose to interpret the
> specifiers differently. Section 3.4 on styles does also not preclude
> styling that is not about the body or target - so it might be worth
> breaking the diagram in two by doing the last rendering/styling step
> separately from the annotation instead.

Yep, that's also what I think.


Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 09:40:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:21 UTC