- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:12:12 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@azaroth, > I would be okay to separate a more generic SpecificResource class from the Annotation specific functionality. I agree that Selector and State are generic, and the rest are Annotation specific. > Great. We have an agreement:-) > I'm (still) not keen on a second namespace, as in the most common use (annotations), people will use the wrong one. Also, they would be potentially even correct to use the wrong one ... they're just using the CG versions of those predicates. > These are indeed good points. I yield:-) > As folks familiar with RDF are okay to pull out individual terms from ontologies, having them separate doesn't seem beneficial to me. If someone can outline the advantages of a separate namespace would be appreciated. > > The core seems like: > > oa:ResourceSegment (or something like that) > oa:Selector (and subclasses) > oa:State (and subclasses) > oa:hasSelector, oa:hasState, oa:hasSubSelector, oa:hasSubState +1 `ResourceSegment`, for my understanding, suggests some sort of an interval, not a specific 'point' in the resource (which is part of what selectors do). `ResourceSelection`? > And then the annotation specific part: > > oa:SpecificResource subClass of oa:ResourceSegment > oa:hasScope, oa:hasPurpose, oa:renderedVia, oa:styleClass/oa:styledBy > To me the Note is "If you want to describe regions of representations, then you need to have a Selector to describe the region, a ResourceSegment to identify it, and you might need a State to get the right representation from the Resource... here are those components." The URI of the RDF namespace is irrelevant. > O.k. Let us go for this approach in the vocabulary and model document. The exact formulation of the note is for later anyway (but it is along the lines of what you propose). I guess this issue may now become a 'purely' editor's job:-) -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-189156623 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 08:12:15 UTC