W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Comment versus UserComments

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:56:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFrMX-LOfb5_pNMZBGMECqU1+NGXJ3xtZ1b5f=u8t872cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 22 February 2012 22:05, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 on Comment type proposal.

Noted :)

> I also would like to propose that the Comment type be reserved as a Parent type for extensible needs ?

All types are extensible; we don't need to do anything special to
reserve option of articulating useful subtypes (or extra properties)
later.

> Domains of Law, Commerce, and Finance would apply their unique domain knowledge whenever the need arises in the future and perhaps sub-categorize a Comment.
>
> For example, off the top of my head, here are Comment type categories used in all 3 of those domains:
> 1. Opinion
> 2. Judgement
> 3. Statement of Facts
> 4. etc...

I can see value in having different kinds of comment. You also see
this in debate-structuring systems such as DebateGraph (see
http://debatemapper.org/ )

We should probably be guided by what's already in the Web, or at least
in Web based systems easily exposed to the Web. Are comments typed as
Opinion / Judgement / Statements of Facts up there in public Web sites
already? Or could they be, with modest effort? Are there plausible
search-related scenarios here? Previous taxonomies of comment types
that we should consider?

Definitely an interesting direction --- but how much should we try to
cover in the next revision, versus going ahead with a simple basic
'Comment' class? As you say this is a good extensibility point; we
don't need to put everything in the core immediately.

cheers,

Dan


> --
> -Thad
> http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry
>
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 22:56:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:48:59 GMT