- From: Randall Leeds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 19:55:27 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
We can define a vocabulary of selectors without any reference to a `SpecificResource`, no? I may have lost the thread. Are we talking about `SpecificResource` because we want to put `State` into the same namespace? Or because we think `SpecificResource` needs to be in the selector namespace? Or because we're assuming that a selector namespace has the `hasSelector` relation? If the latter, couldn't we just not? The namespace has all the selectors but it can be the annotation namespace that provides the `hasSelector` relation to these, and defines the `SpecificResource` class. A selector namespace and base class needn't say anything about the domain of any relation, or the existence of a relation, that brings the selectors into meaningful use, annotation or otherwise. We can simply present a vocabulary of selector descriptions. The annotation vocabulary brings those, by way of `<SpecificResource hasSelector Selector>`, into use as a means to specify a selection from a source resource. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tilgovi Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-188951836 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2016 19:55:29 UTC