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

Re: New Draft comments: Specific Resources - styles

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:08:12 +0100
Message-ID: <5101080C.4070709@few.vu.nl>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Rob,

Splitting the thread according to your grouping:

> __Style__
> It was thought that style should be an Annotation level relationship:
> 1. There could be other implementations that do not require the
> specific resource (for example the @document url() {} construction
> from CSS3, or non CSS) and could be used directly on the body or
> target.
> 2. The same style resource could be used for multiple resources in the
> annotation (eg multiple targets) and thus it would save triples to
> only reference it once.
> 3. It was thought to be strange to have the style *not* be a valid CSS
> document.
> 4. It would be strange to have both styledBy and styleClass on the
> specific resource
> 5. It is similar, notionally, to referring to the CSS in the HTML
> <head>  and then the individual elements having the style attribute.
> My personal feelings:
> 1. Not a big deal, I don't think there will be any non CSS styles.
> 2. Again, a triple here and there is not a big deal. (but see textual
> body discussion where people disagree)
> 3. I think this is the most important.  It would be very strange to
> have a resolvable document that isn't valid CSS.
> 4. Strange, but not impossible. But see 2.
> 5. Useful, and perhaps should be made explicitly in the spec, but not
> a strong argument.
> I don't think that there should be a separate style module as the
> specific resource is required to make Style work.  In the same way
> that there shouldn't be a separate Scope module.  Agreed that the
> wording can be fixed, in this regard.

Fixing the wording can make me happy--that's one of the options I've suggested after all ;-)

But there's still some questions I have about your points. And some issues may be worth being clarified in the spec!

1 -> ok, but isn't this in contradiction with what you say in your conclusion? ("specific resource is required to make Style work")

2 -> much agreed! But in some situations extra triples are needed if the required info grain dictates so--I wonder whether my coming comment on 4 impacts us here.

3 -> Pardon my ignorance, but why having the style attached to the Specific Resource prevent it to be a valid CSS? It's the same property, and the same object, just the subject is different.

4 & 5 -> I agree with this in case where there's indeed one style shared across the board (of Specific Resources). But can we have cases where a specific body is of a class defined in one style, and a specific target of a class defined in another style? How would a data consumer retrieve the right class/style association? Or is this prohibited (I don't remember it now, sorry)?


> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Antoine Isaac<aisaac@few.vu.nl>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> While the discussion on literal vs resource bodies continues, I've decided
>> to go for a break ;-) and check the rest of the documentation before the
>> January 28 deadline.
>> Here are some comments for the Specific Resource module,
>> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/specific.html
>> as of January 20.
>> I think most are editorial, though some may touch on slightly deeper
>> issues...
>> Best,
>> Antoine
>> ====
>> 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.
>> 2. Figure 3.1.1 and specifiers workflow.
>> 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. As mentioned before, Styles are on a quite different
>> level. And besides, there is nothing that requires a State to be applied in
>> addition to a Selector, or the other way around. Applying a State can lead
>> straight to the SR node in the graph of Fig 3.1.1. And a Selector can be
>> applied straight to a resource in the "Source" box. In fact one can read a
>> contradiction between Fig 3.1.1 and "the complete image is the Source" in
>> the text: because what the text says is a Source, would be in fact a
>> Representation in Fig 3.1.1.
>> Finally, Fig 3.1.1 does not state anything about Scopes.
>> I think the idea is to express that States must be processed before
>> Selectors etc, and this is valuable. But there are perhaps way to render it
>> in a way that is less prescriptive of what should happen, and how the ins
>> and outs of every step are to be refered to.
>> 3. Specific Resource Class.
>> As it stands, I'm wondering whether this class is needed at all. After all,
>> one doesn't need the type, it is more the properties like oa:hasSource or
>> oa:hasSelector that are important here. Unless SpecificResource is needed as
>> a kind of functional "slot" which could be used in serializations where such
>> slots have to be provided (as in plain XML)?
>> In all case, the sentence "The oa:SpecificResource class SHOULD be
>> associated with a Specific Resource." needs more motivation: what happens if
>> someone doesn't use this type?
>> 4. Fig 3.1.2
>> In the text that introduces there should be a reminder on why the node
>> spTarget1 is a non-resolvable resource (I suppose a pointer on the
>> discussion on fragment URIS could help).
>> The label of the node "target1" is quite confusing, as this node is supposed
>> to be a Source.
>> 5. Selector class
>> Same question as in #3 (and as for other types of specifiers; but I'll stop
>> at this one): is this class needed? I see that it's not used in Fig. 3.2.
>> 6. Resolvability of Selectors, States, etc.
>> Unless I'm overlooking something, I feel that not enough is said on why
>> these resources are described as having non-resolvable URIs in the example
>> graphs.
>> 7. Query in 3.2: "a resource" ->  "any resource"
>> 8. Fragment Selectors vs. Range Selectors
>> It seems there is overlap between some Range Selectors and some Fragment
>> ones. For example, I suppose that Fragment Selectors using RFC5147 will be
>> equivalent to a family of Text position selectors.
>> I know that OA needs both types, and the specification of every equivalence
>> is certainly out of scope. Yet a reader may be puzzled about which one they
>> have to choose of several practically equivalent alternatives. And data
>> consumers may be harmed down the stream, if a same thing can have two
>> representations.
>> 9. Text normalization
>> (Text Position selectors) says the text should be normalized before
>> counting characters. Fine, but:
>> - is it a SHOULD?
>> - if yes, could there be a link that tells implementers what kind of
>> normalization it is?
>> 10. Fig 3.3.2
>> A specific header request would be really helpful, instead of "headers1".
>> 11. Levels of Style properties
>> I'm certainly missing an explanation somewhere, but at this point it's still
>> not very clear to me from the text, why oa:styledBy is attached to the
>> Annotation resource, while oa:styleClass is attached to a specific resource.
>> It seems to me that having all predicates associated with specific resources
>> would make more sense. It would also fit better the whole idea of Specifiers
>> that belong to the body or the target level.
>> 12. Levels of Scopes
>> The current proposal where oa:hasScope is attached to specific resources
>> makes much sense. Cases where there are multiple specific resources and/or
>> scopes involved in an annotation come to mind...
>> But the text falls quite short on explaining this. Instead, it includes
>> expressions that could lead to confusion, such "It is sometimes important
>> for an Annotation to capture the context in which it was made" and "As such
>> scoping information is only true for a particular Annotation". Granted,
>> there's not wrong, it's just that they can be misleading for readers.
>> 13. Body/target vs. Specific resource, re-loaded
>> 3.5 features the sentence: "it must be attached to a Specific Resource, and
>> not to the Body or Target directly." while Fig 3.5 has (as flagged earlier)
>> a node labeled "target1" as the Source. This is very confusing, because of
>> course it is spTarget1 that is the object of oa:hasTarget.
>> Following comment 4, I'd recommend to replace target1 by source1 in Fig.3.5
>> and replace the problematic sentence by
>> "it must be attached to a Specific Resource (Body or Target), and not to the
>> Source directly."
>> and then update the rest of 3.5.
>> I suppose there are a couple of places in the Module where such re-wording
>> has to be done.
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 10:08:46 UTC

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