- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 12:27:30 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
(This message was also sent by email, but GitHub didn't pick it up) -1 to drop the dctypes. I think the dctypes at least on the target can be important to understand what kind of annotations we're talking about.. e.g. an Image has quite a different kinds of selectors than a Text. The classes are very broad, and can't reliably be used for mime-type selection of rendering mechanism. But consider an annotation where the target has since gone 404 (or is a protected resource) so we can't check its actual mime type - then it can still be of importance to understand the annotation body (say a textual comment) if it's about a dctypes:MovingImage or a dctype:Text - e.g. the comment might say "Too much violence". But this assumes you can do it all black and white.. what is the type of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOpUL_hqNlU ? If you do it literally by mime type, it's a text/html. By content it's a video. But actually.. the target is not particulatly MovingImage as it is one of those "music on youtube with still image" - so really semantically it is a dctypes:Sound - "a resource primarily intended to be heard." -- or with a bit of faith - a (representation of) a https://schema.org/MusicAlbum So if I say that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOpUL_hqNlU "This is great, my uncle use to sell this in the 80s" as a comment on this - I don't mean he used to sell the HTML page or the Youtube video. But I might be able to select a type that it's Sound or Music or something like that, and then you would understand, possibly even if the youtube video goes down (as they often do) -- GitHub Notif of comment by stain See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/67#issuecomment-134171758
Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 12:27:33 UTC