- 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