- From: BigBlueHat via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 19:00:35 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@tilgovi if we add a note or appendix or some such that explains the "just RDF" approach (as expressed in @azaroth42's `foaf:depicts` example), do you feel that sufficiently addresses your concern? I agree with @azaroth42 and @jjett that turning `motivations` into something they're not (or trying to re-specify them into something "more") would really be wheel reinvention (we already have RDF that does this) and actually limit the value of the intentional vagueness of motivation (as currently specified)--which (to me at least) is more about "signaling" usage vs. defining a thing categorically (or in RDF terms "classifying"). Given that we can simply add ad hoc triples into the graph via JSON-LD constructs, I feel the use cases are all best served with our current approach: - use `motivations` to signal what this body MAY be used for along side the target - use RDF to further specify relationship between any part of the graph--typically between `body` and `target` and/or the annotation and either of them Thoughts? -- GitHub Notif of comment by BigBlueHat See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/98#issuecomment-153831097
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 19:00:36 UTC