- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:15:22 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
I'm sorry it's still not solving the problem. It's not really about what is meant with the pattern, it's what is asserted in RDF. Basically as long as example 20 remains with the hijacking of the 'friends of user 44' URI as it is currently at https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/5ee91db6a45a41b4e7dea0f7aa35b33f6c8aebc2/model/index.html then the issue I've raised in point 7 at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/162#issuecomment-302255515 still applies. I.e. stating the constraint applies to http://example.com/user44/friends means that for any client that has read this statement it will apply to any occurrence of http://example.com/user44/friends, even withing a rule would use this group in a different constraint (say, one that would select children friends of user 44). This is what is done by using the @uid attribute. And this is why I was interested in the Web Annotation pattern for selectors at https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#selectors With that pattern, http://example.com/user44/friends would appear in a "source" attribute, not @uid. And in RDF terms this makes a *huge* difference. -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/164#issuecomment-309709281 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 10:15:28 UTC