- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:18:38 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@jjett : > @iherman I think your suggestion over complicates the situation. If we're limiting ourselves to pure RDF issues then the purpose of the Specific Resource is to act as a signpost indicating under which circumstances a group of assertions about some web resource is true. However since Specific Resource is a class it has no relationship to the annotation class per se (such relationships are the product of the hasBody and hasTarget predicates). As long as we don't define the class in such a way that it must be interpreted as something only ever within the range of the hasBody and hasTarget predicates then I don't see any reason not to expose it for use in contexts outside of annotations (in which it is only contingently involved in anyway). As I said, the current setup is not fundamentally wrong. What worries me is that there _are_ annotation specific properties that trigger a typing on Specific Resource, and that is what bothers me. But bothers me only a little, again as I said, I will not start a fight on this:-) -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-188155174 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 09:18:40 UTC