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

Re: New Draft comments: textual bodies

From: Bernhard Haslhofer <bernhard.haslhofer@cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:11:27 -0500
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <619BA2AFD98F41C7ADC2A7E4839CEF16@gmail.com>
Hi Rob,

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

> Then there's Markdown, various wiki languages, RTF, various XML or JSON dialects for mark up, etc etc. I don't see a client could be expected to know even that it can't properly render a comment without some level of metadata.
>  
> Unless literals are restricted to *only* text/plain. So no markup at all.  
Take Flickr commons (http://www.flickr.com/commons) and look at the thousands of notes people provided for the images there.

Those are real-world annotation examples all of them being simple plain strings. They could easily be represented as...

flickr:note1 a oa:Annotation ;
oa:hasBody "what are those holes for?" ;
oa:hasTarget <http://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalmediamuseum/3588905866#xywh=160,120,320,240> # sample pixel values
 > ;

…without missing information a client needs to render an annotation.

This should show that plain string annotations occur in the real world and I think OA should take this account and support this kind of simple annotations.

But again: this is not against the existing ContentAsText approach for more complex requirements, which, I certainly agree, must be supported. It is, as Antoine said, just about providing simple patterns for simple, real-world needs.

Bernhard
Received on Friday, 11 January 2013 15:11:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 11 January 2013 15:11:58 GMT