W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [web-annotation] format in the model for Embeded Textual Body?

From: Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:14:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAE3H5FK8f6Y5U1JmEjU8HwW2g1fJ60gQ43WF_d6mjOY4fTgFbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Actually, it looks like Tim added the "language" and "format" keys when
changing it from a string literal to an object. The string literal won't
work with any of these variants as it has to be moved into an object to
add...

an `id` (for blank nodes)
https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations#.C2.A0.C2.A0Role_Assignment

or `type`
https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations#.C2.A0.C2.A0Role_as_Class_.2F_Typed_Bodies_and_Targets

So, they can be left out, but once it's an object, it does feel a bit silly
not to take advantage of the space. :)

This does also clarify that any of these objects mean string literals won't
work with multiple bodies serving different roles / motivations.

Thanks for the work on simplifying these, Ivan!
Benjamin
I am calling it a day now (it is Friday evening) but I can try to do that
on Monday unless somebody beats me beforehand…

Ivan

> On 14 Aug 2015, at 18:57 , Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is> wrote:
>
> Anyone up to simplifying Tim's examples so the important differences in
the format / structure are clear (I.e. remove the more "expressive" via
which don't directly person to solving the problem at hand)?
>
> I think it would help everyone see clearly. :)
>


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Monday, 17 August 2015 11:15:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:39 UTC