- From: Rob Sanderson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:23:10 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
I would be okay to separate a more generic SpecificResource class from the Annotation specific functionality. I agree that Selector and State are generic, and the rest are Annotation specific. I'm (still) not keen on a second namespace, as in the most common use (annotations), people will use the wrong one. Also, they would be potentially even correct to use the wrong one ... they're just using the CG versions of those predicates. As folks familiar with RDF are okay to pull out individual terms from ontologies, having them separate doesn't seem beneficial to me. If someone can outline the advantages of a separate namespace would be appreciated. The core seems like: * oa:ResourceSegment (or something like that) * oa:Selector (and subclasses) * oa:State (and subclasses) * oa:hasSelector, oa:hasState, oa:hasSubSelector, oa:hasSubState And then the annotation specific part: * oa:SpecificResource subClass of oa:ResourceSegment * oa:hasScope, oa:hasPurpose, oa:renderedVia, oa:styleClass/oa:styledBy To me the Note is "If you want to describe regions of representations, then you need to have a Selector to describe the region, a ResourceSegment to identify it, and you might need a State to get the right representation from the Resource... here are those components." The URI of the RDF namespace is irrelevant. -- GitHub Notification of comment by azaroth42 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-188963956 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2016 20:23:12 UTC