- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:42:24 +0200
- To: "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: Social Web Working Group <public-socialweb@w3.org>
On 04/29/2015 08:37 AM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
>
>> On 29 Apr 2015, at 03:20, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Which argument are you referring to?
>>
> All of the arguments you put forward in the teleconf will do. There were not that many.
I can think only of two minor reasons which make some sense to me but
section about as:Link in core spec doesn't even say a word about them
1) antidote for possible issue with as:displayNameMap
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Apr/0081.html
2) giving link itself different label than for the resource it points to
Myself I really don't see it justifying
* quite heavy section in core spec #link
* tons of owl:unionOf in formal vocabulary
rdfs:domain [
a owl:Class ;
owl:unionOf ( as:Foo as:Link )
] .
* almost doubling complexity of test suite to account for possible
occurrences all over with either as:Object with @id or as:Link with href
IMO we should focus on reporting more concrete issues taken from a
running code instead continue theoretical debates!
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2015 16:42:28 UTC