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

Re: FragmentSelectors: multiple dcterms:conformsTo ?

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:40:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUGHBMo0HPEGQChUBOK0rdk3GOQn3mrkO20Fouaf0Ve30g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
The semantics for conformsTo on a FragmentSelector are to disambiguate
what is intended by the fragment part of the URI conveyed in

So for multiple standards, either:

1) Both standards result in the same interpretation of the the same
fragment (hopefully!) and there's no harm in multiple
2) The standards result in different interpretations of the same
fragment, and you thus need to put in the one that results in the
segment that you intend.

So ... I think we'd need to understand the use case a bit better :)


On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
> I (think that I ) have a use case best described as conforming to two
> orthogonal specs. The Feb 8 core is silent  on multiple conformsTo.
> Since there is(?) no machine semantics for conformsTo, multiples seem
> harmless.  But possibly the OA spec should be more explicit  because
> the explanatory text  in Sec 3.2.1 speaks of "the" standard:
> "Clients MUST process the value of the FragmentSelector based on the
> standard that it conforms to".
> If multiples are permitted, then in case the conformance specs
> conflict,  it may be necessary to allow the oa:List or rdf:List o
> provide the order of application of the processing guided by the
> conformance specs and remind the reader of its necessity.
> Bob
> --
> Robert A. Morris
> Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
> UMASS-Boston
> 100 Morrissey Blvd
> Boston, MA 02125-3390
> IT Staff
> Filtered Push Project
> Harvard University Herbaria
> Harvard University
> email: morris.bob@gmail.com
> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
> web: http://wiki.filteredpush.org
> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
> ===
> The content of this communication is made entirely on my
> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
> Harvard University.
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 21:41:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:03 UTC