Re: [web-annotation] Language should use the Language Tags Vocabulary

well ... I expressed my opinion before, that the WA standard should be
 technology independent. 
The provided examples are non-normative, and one can notice big 
differences between the rdf/xml and jsonld examples. 
(I'm not very interested in the rdf/xml serialization as I don't use 
it for now, but I'm interested in the json-ld)

So I asume that by rdf:Literal you related to the Value Objects/ 
language-tagged string as specified in the jsonld, which define the 
@value and @language properties 
see
https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#value-objects    
https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#dfn-language-tagged-string

So .. if I understood correctly your claim, you want to say that:
1. rdf:Literal is equivalent to language-tagged-string and the 
representations should be used consistently
2. The bodies should provide support for correct representation of 
"string literals"/"language-tagged strings"

... in generally I support these claims only that there are some 
related aspects to take in account 
a. I find "text" to be more appropriate that "value" to represent the 
free text provided by user. 
b. there must be a clear differentiation between the "value", "text" 
and "@id"(/httpuri) properties. I think that the "value" is by default
 ambiguous. So if we want to introduce @value & @language, i would be 
tempted to propose the followign representation as being correct, but 
this is a quire verbose one:
{
  "motivation": "commenting",
  "body": { 
    "text": { "@value": "my useful comment",  "@language": "en" }
  },
  "target": "http://..."
}
c. I think that this  "string literals"/"language-tagged strings" 
issue is actually ... nothing different than the support for "i18n". 
Which is not included yet in the WA draft. And yes, I do agree this is
 needed, and it should be considered  first when serializing 
language-tagged texts.

Personal conclusion:
I hope that I got it right this time, and I didn't bring more 
confusion in the thread. 
If my understanding was correct, I would opt for moving the "todays 
discussions" in this thread to own issue, as it diverges from the 
initial text of the isues and the resolution (proposing usage of 
html/xml language tags) doesn't conflicts with the issue discussed 
here.

Br,
Sergiu


    

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by gsergiu
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/134#issuecomment-181374124
 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 8 February 2016 13:43:19 UTC