- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:56:09 +0100
- To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 22 February 2012 22:05, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 on Comment type proposal. Noted :) > I also would like to propose that the Comment type be reserved as a Parent type for extensible needs ? All types are extensible; we don't need to do anything special to reserve option of articulating useful subtypes (or extra properties) later. > Domains of Law, Commerce, and Finance would apply their unique domain knowledge whenever the need arises in the future and perhaps sub-categorize a Comment. > > For example, off the top of my head, here are Comment type categories used in all 3 of those domains: > 1. Opinion > 2. Judgement > 3. Statement of Facts > 4. etc... I can see value in having different kinds of comment. You also see this in debate-structuring systems such as DebateGraph (see http://debatemapper.org/ ) We should probably be guided by what's already in the Web, or at least in Web based systems easily exposed to the Web. Are comments typed as Opinion / Judgement / Statements of Facts up there in public Web sites already? Or could they be, with modest effort? Are there plausible search-related scenarios here? Previous taxonomies of comment types that we should consider? Definitely an interesting direction --- but how much should we try to cover in the next revision, versus going ahead with a simple basic 'Comment' class? As you say this is a good extensibility point; we don't need to put everything in the core immediately. cheers, Dan > -- > -Thad > http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry >
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 22:56:37 UTC