- From: gsergiu via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 16:15:58 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@pciccarese > Then community A defines the more specific terms and they provide, in such definition the means to connect the terms (through skos). Well .. this implies that community 1 extends the assessing with like/dislike, and community 2 extends the assessing with agree/disagree/endorse. If the systems start sometime later to communicate with each other, how should be the annotations interpreted? Like/dislike shold get the meaning of agree/disagree? Or should the community 2 map like to endorse? Of course it is wrong to do this, and as much as we want to claim that "general" things are interoperable, the thruth is that extensions are not interoperable by default! Therefore I think that a rich list of motivations is important in this context, especially for the purpose of supporting the interoperability! -- GitHub Notification of comment by gsergiu Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/248#issuecomment-222739820 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2016 16:16:00 UTC