- From: Rob Sanderson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 17:21:33 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
>From an RDF point of view, no. From a developer point of view, I
(personally) would prefer to be told what sort of thing the object is,
rather than having to guess by introspecting on the object's
properties. Especially if properties or patterns beyond those of OA
are used.
For example:
```
{ "value": "paris" } or in Turtle [ rdf:value "paris" ]
```
EmbeddedContent? FragmentSelector? HttpRequestState? I can tell from
the relationship and structure, but it's more work than just being
told :)
Worse:
```
{ "start": 100, "end": 400 }
```
Could be legitimately either a TextPositionSelector or a
DataPositionSelector, and the client would do different things for
those two classes.
In this case I need to be told which.
```
[ "members": [1,2,3] ]
```
A oa:Choice or a oa:List? Again, very different behavior.
Programming defensively, one would check for the properties that are
absolutely required and not rely on type ... unless you have to. But
it's much easier (again IMO) to do a @type value to internal class map
when creating the structure in your environment.
--
GitHub Notif of comment by azaroth42
See
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/61#issuecomment-128449552
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2015 17:21:36 UTC