W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > July 2015

RE: Adherence to standards vs specialized functionality

From: Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:44:11 -0400
To: "'Robert Sanderson'" <azaroth42@gmail.com>, "'public-annotation@w3.org'" <public-annotation@w3.org>
CC: "'W3C Public Annotation List'" <public-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0EEF938438DEF843A0AAAC358E4A9874016F7654@LCXCLMB03.LCDS.LOC.GOV>
Well then let me rephrase the question, in an attempt to avoid trying to make sense of the near-hundred email on this, and try to get to the heart of the issue: What is being suggested that violates these principles, and more importantly, how do they violate them?  (Maybe it would be good if, in preparation for a conference call on this, we could take a fresh look, and start by framing the issue.)


From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 3:22 PM
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Cc: W3C Public Annotation List
Subject: Adherence to standards vs specialized functionality

The principles are pretty fundamental:

*  one from the web architecture, that every resource has a global identity
*  and one from RDF, that the graph is an open world model where the context of an assertion has no bearing on its scope: all assertions are of global scope

If we're going to ignore fundamentals like those, we should stop and reassess the value of all existing work because we would be making tradeoffs at the edges that break the core.  If we're going to make such tradeoffs, then we should do it from the core out not the edges in.  That would mean, essentially, starting again.

Consider the agony of dealing with badly formed HTML and having to guess at the intent of the author, compared to well-formed XML. There's a cost at creation time to adhere to the specifications, but it makes everything much easier down the line.  I sure hope we're past the stage of wanting to define the equivalent of kludgey, sloppy HTML.


On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov<mailto:rden@loc.gov>> wrote:
From: Doug Schepers
> Regarding assumptions, for example, there seems to be an implicit assumption
> that we need to prioritize adherence to the RDF model over performance or
> specialized functionality;

Doug - what would be the RDF model principles relevant to this issue?


Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Friday, 10 July 2015 19:44:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:37 UTC