- From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 21:21:33 +0100
- To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Jan 6, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > "This model was chosen over having a literal as the Body directly for the following reasons:" > I'm sorry, but I still don't buy most of the reasons. And I believe I won't be the only one… I fully agree with Antoine here. I think all arguments given in the document are very good arguments to argue for _allowing_ bodies to be URI resources for those who need them to be. I'm all for that. But I do not buy any of the arguments as a solid argument _disallowing_ literal texts as bodies for those who prefer them to be literals. I can see problems when you do not allow URI bodies. I can see problems when you do not allow literal bodies. But I cannot see what problems arise when you allow both. Jacco PS: "Representing Content in RDF 1.0" seems like a spec that is dead on arrival… is there any evidence it is not?
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2013 20:21:58 UTC