- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 12:36:24 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
> On 24 Aug 2015, at 14:31 , Stian Soiland-Reyes <notifications@github.com> wrote: > > I say -1 to drop to SpecificResource - unless we are going for always having it as the object of hasBody / hasTarget (e.g. SpecificResource or equivalent specified as their rdfs:range). You should look at: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0209.html this is the direction we may be going… Ivan > Why? Because SpecificResource is a placeholder - and so this should be prominently marked beyond just a oa:hasSource. > > Where's the issue suggesting this change to hasBody and hasTarget? It would be incompatible with earlier OA model - which should be part of the consideration. > > How would oa:Choice etc. be used? Subclassing (whatever replaces) SpecificResource? > > — > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub. > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 -- GitHub Notif of comment by iherman See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/67#issuecomment-134177469
Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 12:36:26 UTC