[web-annotation] Should we systematically use typing in the model (and in the examples)?

• From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
• Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 05:18:04 +0000
• To: public-annotation@w3.org
• Message-ID: <issues.opened-99356572-1438838282-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

iherman has just created a new issue for 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation:

== Should we systematically use typing in the model (and in the 
examples)? ==
In all our examples we systematically use RDF typing for all objects, 
eg,

```
{
    "@id": "http://example.org/anno1",
   "@type": "Annotation",
  ....
     {
        "@id" : "http://example.org/tag1"
       "@type": "EmbeddedContent"
      ...
```

>From an RDF point of view, this is not required. If the RDFS 
vocabulary, that should eventually be prepared, includes the necessary
 ``rdfs:domain`` and ``rdfs:range`` information, those who are 
interested can use simple RDFS reasoners to retrieve the type 
information. On the other hand, for pure JSON users this information 
seems to be superfluous and disturbing (exacerbated by the fact that 
``@type`` is not exactly looking nice, although that may be mitigated 
through the ``@context``).

See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/61

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2015 05:18:06 UTC