- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:56:53 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@azaroth42, I am afraid the first option (redirect to the TR document) is not really consistent with the license setup. By now we know that the vocabularies, ie, the turtle and other serialization files, are under a software license, whereas the vocab Recommendation will be under the document license. I think it would not really look good if, depending on the HTTP preference, one would get documents with different licenses. Let us also not forget that content negotiation means that you would get, essentially, _the same_ document albeit with the possibility of different formats. The Rec includes a number of additional facts, examples, maybe restrictions that are not expressed in the vocabulary document proper. Bottom line: I do not believe the first option is appropriate. I do not know whether it is possible, with some tools, to produce a simple HTML file, that does only includes the vocabulary, hopefully/possibly with RDFa so that the RDF vocabulary can be extracted by and RDFa tool. If such a tool is around, we should use it to produce a simple HTML file. Otherwise there is no HTML version, and conneg can be used to choose among Turtle, JSON-LD and, for the old-skool users, RDF/XML. The vocabulary file itself should include (it may already have it, have not yet checked) a reference to the /TR document as a seeAlso or something similar. -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/199#issuecomment-203306424 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 07:56:55 UTC