Re: annotation status property proposal

With respect to the namespace question, the reason I raised the status 
issue on this mailing list was to see if other people agree that the 
idea is generally useful enough that it should be added to the W3C 
Annotea schema.  Is extending the core schema more trouble than it is 
worth?  What do other people think?

As for RDF Calendar, I have not had any substantive discussions with the 
people who are working on that and I could not find anything in their 
published work that extends the RFC 2445 STATUS values.

-Mark


Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:54:47 +1100, Mark Smith <mcs@pearlcrescent.com>  
> wrote:
> 
>> I have been thinking more about how a status property should be defined
>> and have drafted a proposal (note that I am not an RDF schema expert,
>> and also note that the schema URIs may need to be changed).
>>
>> The attached RDF schema defines a series of classes to support these 6
>> status values:
>>
>>    NeedsAction
>>    InProcess
>>    Reopened
>>    Completed
>>    Approved
>>    Closed
>>
>> We'd also have to add a property definition like the following to the
>> Annotation schema (http://www.w3.org/2000/10/annotation-ns#):
> 
> 
> Well, it seems to make sense to me. Although there is no real need to 
> use  the base namespace to identify your terms (it's just a string, and 
> any  string that matches URI syntax would do) so you coul publish your 
> schema  somewhere and use it, and it can be readily incorporated into 
> other stuff.
> 
> Did you look into the RDF Calendar work and find that this hasn't been  
> done already?

Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 19:14:07 UTC