W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > July 2015

Question/feedback re: oa:hasBody and cnt:ContentAsText in RDFa

From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 18:16:18 +0200
Message-ID: <55B3B652.8030208@csarven.ca>
To: public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi all,

http://openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#BodyEmbed suggests to use 
dc:format. I was wondering whether it'd be okay to use dcterms:format 
instead? My reasoning is simply that I predominantly use dcterms, and 
don't wish to introduce dc (elements). Tough luck?

I find cnt to be (unnecessarily?) cumbersome in RDFa when used with 
oa:hasBody and cnt:ContentAsText. Use case: representing comments on a 
webpage which include HTML. This forces me to add markup that's only for 
machine consumption i.e., <span property="dcterms:format" 
content="text/html"></span></div>, and possibly even <span 
property="cnt:characterEncoding" content="utf-8"></span>, <span 
property="dcterms:language" content="en"></span>. I think we can agree 
that the above information is not very "interesting" to a human-reader 
on a webpage.

Leaving dcterms:format would mean that the consumer has to further 
process - I'm okay with this if there is no sensible alternative.

Are there any workarounds people employing? How does the following look:

<div rel="oa:hasBody">
   <div about="http://example.org/foo" property="dcterms:description" 
datatype="rdf:HTML">
     <p>foo</p>
   </div>
</div>

[Note that the rdf:HTML datatype is left as non-normative in RDF 1.1: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-html ]

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2015 16:16:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 25 July 2015 16:16:48 UTC