- From: Nick Stenning <nick@whiteink.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:37:34 +0100
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014, at 10:27, Nick Stenning wrote:
>
> To expand on the last point. If we put this mapping in the data model,
> we are limited to the concepts that can reasonably be expressed in a
> data format we are expecting people to parse.
I suspect my previous emails have sounded like I'm strongly against
encoding additional metadata referencing canonical identifiers or
alternative representations in the model. That's not quite true.
I'm very happy for there to be a place for this data in the model, as
long as:
1) The encoding of the data is simple. We need to place bounds on the
required complexity of clients. We discussed "levels" of conformance at
TPAC. Perhaps this is one example of where the lowest level could ignore
this feature.
2) The annotations should still make sense even if I'm a client that
doesn't know how to use the additional data, if I'm able to lean on a
smart server-side component. Put another way, a dumb client should be
able to use a query API and the returned results as described in Paolo's
target extension examples, or my "Situation 1" in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014Dec/0024.html
-N
Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 09:37:56 UTC