- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 14:44:18 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
Rob, minor point: what is the reason to restrict hasBodyText to 0 or 1? Otherwise +1 for me. I. > The proposal is, in more detail: > > Create a new property oa:hasBodyText with a domain of Annotation and a range of literal. > Use text as the key in JSON-LD for that predicate > Leave hasBody alone, other than reverting to a range of rdf:Resource > Rename oa:text to oa:content, domain of oa:EmbeddedContent, range of literal > Use content as the JSON-LD key for that predicate > Continue to have a TextualBody class, which is subClassOf oa:EmbeddedContent and allows oa:hasRole (role) > Assert in additional restrictions and the processing model that: > > There MUST be 0-1 hasBodyText per Annotation > Systems MAY treat annotation.text and annotation.body[0].content as equivalent > Thus these two can be treated as equivalent: > > { > "type": "Annotation", > "text": "My comment", > "target": "http://example.org/target" > } > { > "type": "Annotation", > "body": { > "type": "TextualBody", > "content": "My comment" > }, > "target": "http://example.org/target" > } > > -- GitHub Notif of comment by iherman See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/79#issuecomment-154079802
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 14:44:20 UTC