W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

Re: New Draft comments: textual bodies

From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 21:21:33 +0100
Message-Id: <B0050897-B458-4753-A8A4-F9C85F979547@cwi.nl>
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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:02 UTC