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

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

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:25:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUH3wfevkScXsjVOKM3LV_gW1zNaFp=XRjhgH8TcAPjuKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Sarven,

One of the considerations here was that you can't have both language and
datatype associated with the same literal, so we had to pick two predicates
for recording the information and mint a resource for the subject.  We went
with Content in RDF as it seemed at the time to have some legs and
fulfilled our requirements.  In the Annotation working group, we've minted
our own class, as it's clear that CNT is abandoned and will never reach
recommendation status.

We went with dc rather than dcterms because of the ranges.  dcterms:format
has a range of a resource of class dcterms;MediaTypeOrExtent.  We thought
this was overkill for the 95% use case of just recording the media type of
the content, and dc elements has no such requirement.  Ditto
dcterms:language and dcterms:LinguisticSystem, versus dc:language.

While the information in RDFA is not very interesting to a human reader of
the page, RDFA is not intended for humans :)  Once that annotation has been
pulled out of the page and made available separately as its own resource,
that information is very important so clients know how to render it to the
user.

Hope that helps!

Rob




On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2015 19:26:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 25 July 2015 19:26:19 UTC