Re: [web-annotation] Simplifying hasBody

The issue is a conflation of model and serialization.  The desire is 
to have a "simple" JSON serialization, and that is driving the model 
rather than aiming for a coherent and consistent model, and trying to 
fine tune the serialization over top of it.  So we end up with 
overloaded properties like hasBody causing inconsistencies like being 
able to have a URI with a string for the target being a URI, but not 
for the body where a string is just a string.

We discussed two properties but, if I recall correctly, the 
serialization of "body": "comment" was the preferred solution.  I 
agree, personally, that two properties would be cleaner if we must 
have literal bodies at all.  Then systems that don't want to use them 
but instead have a clean and reliable structure can just use the 
embedded content pattern.

As for language, having one pattern is better than two, and you can't 
have both language and format on a literal.  Hence the restrictions on
 literal bodies to have neither, especially as in JSON-LD the 
structure would be *identical* to the embedded method.

GitHub Notif of comment by azaroth42

Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2015 02:31:51 UTC