- 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