More namespace nesting would of course increase people's ability to taxonomize. It's a splippery slope though and we are trying to balance expressiveness with simplicity. Providing for arbitrarily nested namespaces increases complexity considerably both from an implementation perspective and a comprehension perspective.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:45 AM, gabriele renzi <rff....@gmail.com> wrote: > > * What is an annotation more exactly exactly? > > First off let's be clearer about what an annotation is. An annotation is > a > > namespace, key, value triple. A tweet can have one or more annotations. > > Namespaces can have one or more key/value pairs. > > first, annotations are cool, thanks. But why triples instead of quads? > Say, we'd like to store three groups of movie data . If I do > movie: rating: 5 > > then we risk conflict with someone else using the same namespace in a > different way, e.g. > movie: rating: ***** > > . At the same time, if I use the namespace for my > application to avoid conflicts, I have to encode two of the fields in > one > > cascaad: movie_rating : XXXX > or > cascaad_movie : rating: XXXX > > Did you consider this and decided it's not worth making the effort for > a fourth field, or just ignored the issue, or simply didn't think of > it? > If triples are staying, can we establish a _convention_ early on on > how to best handle this? > > > -- > Subscription settings: > http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/subscribe?hl=en > -- Marcel Molina Twitter Platform Team http://twitter.com/noradio
