Re: [web-annotation] Dropping type from ... what?

+1 from me to only relax the dctypes to a MAY.

Having reread section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 more carefully, it's clear that
points about how dctypes:Class and dc:format can be exploited are a 
backwards. Typically we are going to want look for format first if
available and then fall back to dctype if that format is an opaque 
format (like html) for the kind of rendering that 3.2.2 is suggesting.

I suggest that the language regarding applications determining and
rendering resources be moved to 3.2.3 and new text describing dctypes 
the backup plan for rendering resources be added. We should leave a 
that at the developer's preference it can be used as a shortcut for
determining how to render certain kinds of resources exactly as 

I further suggest swapping locations of 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 so that body 
target metadata is discussed first and body and target classes (I 
think we
mean the type of content they contain but possibly we mean to repeat 
type of format) is discussed second.

With regards to UI/UX I was imagining both the scenario that is 
described (client is given a dctypes:Image resource and knows to wrap 
it in
an <img> element with the appropriate src attribute) and also 
where dctypes:Image is leveraged by an annotation system's IR feature 
retrieve at the user's request, all of the annotations targeting 
images or
all of the annotations that annotate something with images or all of 
annotations that have images as a part of them.



Jacob Jett
Research Assistant
Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
(217) 244-2164

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM, BigBlueHat <>

> The Web doesn't have a feature called "file extension." [image: 
> What's the media type of
> or
> ?
> Regardless, I think we need to narrow in on some use cases for both
> dctypes and format. My preference would be to keep them both, lower 
> from SHOULD to MAY, and go from there.
> Would that put this issue to rest? If not, what's needed to help 
close the
> loop?
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> .

GitHub Notif of comment by jjett

Received on Thursday, 27 August 2015 19:49:04 UTC