Ryan Lee wrote:
> 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.
>
I share Ryan's opinion.
--
Emmanuel Pietriga
INRIA Futurs - Projet In Situ tel : +33 1 69 15 34 66
Bat 490, Université Paris-Sud fax : +33 1 69 15 65 86
91405 ORSAY Cedex http://www.lri.fr/~pietriga
Received on Tue Jun 28 2005 - 04:52:14 EDT