- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:16:28 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
Ok, I see that I cannot really convince you guys, and I do not want to drag this on indefinitely. Let me propose a compromise solution. More exactly a compromise solution with sub sub-alternatives. The main point is: we leave everything mostly as it is, and we also publish a Note on how these terms can be used outside of the Annotation domain. That note would, essentially, include (non-normatively, because it is a note) the definition of the ``Selector`` classes in such a way that the document would stand by itself for non-Annotation usage. (I am not sure whether that document would deal with RDF/Turtle, or only JSON-LD; probably the latter.) To be a bit more precise, I see the following alternatives to realize that (beyond writing the note itself). 1. Both the RDF and JSON documents stay as it is. 2. The ``Selector`` class, as well as the relevant properties, go into a separate namespace. The RDF document has to change a little bit accordingly, the JSON document stays as it is (except for a tiny change in the ``@context`` file). 3. Like alternative 2, but the note would also include the definition of ``SelectedResource`` class that is a *superclass* of ``SelectedResource``, as well as the super properties for ``source`` and ``select``. That means that note would have an RDF aspect defining those extra vocabulary items, but it is non-normative. 4. The RDF document includes the ``SelectedResource`` class in the ``Selector`` namespace, plus the ``source`` and ``select`` attribute, and the ``SpecificResource`` becomes a subclass of ``SelectedResource``. The RDF vocabulary changes a bit, but not significantly; the JSON document stays as it is (except for a tiny change in the ``@context`` file). Obviously, alts. 3 and 4 are, semantically, identical, and implement [the approach I outlined](https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-159906649). Alternative 4 is clean; alternative 3 pushes the corpse entirely to the separate note. Both are doable. Because it is a Note, we have the entire life span of the group to write and publish it. Obviously, putting my money (well, time, rather) where my mouth is, I would take on the responsibility for it. -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-159909503 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2015 13:16:31 UTC