- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 11:01:20 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@azaroth42 : I am not sure which part of the discussion you want to postpone. 1. Writing a separate Note: that, of course, can be done later and, actually, it is probably better to do it when the documents are indeed in CR, ie, technically stable. 2. The issue of namespaces, ie, their separation, as well as the 'superclass' approach described in https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-163573384 is a change we have to do _before_ CR (if we agree to do it); once in CR such a technical change is not possible any more. At this point, the WG has to decide on, essentially, (2) above, I believe there is pretty much a consensus on (1). Note that an alternative that came up in a separate discussion is that the note (1), more exactly its RDF companion, would define its own namespace and would use `owl:samePropertyAs` to bind terms to the annotation vocabulary. That would avoid touching the vocabulary document if you think it is too late to do that, but would have the same effect. Ain't nice in my view, though. And it also means that it would expose the SpecificResource class in general, which is closely bound to the annotation use case and is not really meaningful more generally... hence my preference for the separate superclass that I described in https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-160566248... -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-186798128 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2016 11:01:23 UTC