Chris Bizer wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
>>>- The documentation about primaryClasses appears a bit strict to me:
>>>rdfs:comment "Specifies the classes that should be considered primaries,
>>>or first class results; secondary resources not matching the primaries will
>>>only be shown as sublenses. The range is a list of resource
>>>selectors."_at_en^^dtype:string ;
>>>
>>>isn't it more like:
>>>
>>>rdfs:comment "Specifies the classes that should be considered primaries.
>>>Primaries are an indicator for the browser which classes in an ontology are
>>>important and might therefore be used as starting points or be included into
>>>contents summaries or navigational structures. Example: The person class
>>>might be considered primary, persons's addresses might be considered
>>>secondary. The range is a list of resource selectors."_at_en^^dtype:string ;
>>
>>I don't see what you're trying to get at. Could you explain what you're
>>trying to differentiate here?
>
> What I don't like is the *only* in "[secondaries] will only be shown as
> sublenses". I thought about primaries more as additional hints that a
> browser might use to decide which classes make good starting points. Thats's
> why I would prefer a softer formulation in the text.
>
> Do I understand this right?
That is the intent I had, yes. What would a hint do, in your view? How
would you decide to follow or not follow the hint? It seems to me we
should keep from indeterminate or unexpected results as much as we can -
if I say something, I expect it to happen. If I don't, then let the
browser decide.
--
Ryan Lee ryanlee_at_w3.org
W3C Research Engineer +1.617.253.5327
http://simile.mit.edu/
Received on Mon Jun 27 2005 - 22:37:49 EDT