- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 06:06:20 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
Ok, you are right but I also realized what led me down the wrong path. You do have an example for what you say in [4.1](https://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#h-purpose-for-external-web-resources). And yes, that section "defines" `purpose` to be usable for such a resource. However, in [3.3.4](https://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#h-motivation-and-purpose), where `purpose` is first defined, it says, as part of the definition: "The relationship between a TextualBody and a Motivation." This can be read as a formal definition for that property which has a restriction. In fact, you have the definition of that property at two different places! (Yes, I realize, those are not really definitions but...) The whole of section 3.3 talks about different properties and many of those can be used for Specific Resources, ie, for bodies in general. However, so far in the narrative there is nothing about specific resources, and I have not seen some sort of a reference back to 3.3 (eg, in the introduction of Specific Resource in section 4) that makes this clear. Maybe, as I proposed earlier, we should have an intro section with a terminology for external resource, web resource, specific resource, etc, making clear how these things interrelate. It could also make it clear that the properties are defined for a specific type of object but those definitions are not meant to be exclusive for the property. B.t.w., just to add to your headache, I believe an index for the classes and properties, to be put into an appendix, would be a good idea, too. I believe respec has tools for definitions and reference to the definitions that is relatively easy to use (and generates cross links automatically). (We can discuss the technical details.) (I changed the issue to be editorial, though) -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/142#issuecomment-173104749 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 06:06:21 UTC