- From: Hugo Manguinhas via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:35:41 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
Hi Rob, Ivan and Sergiu, Like Sergiu, I was a bit surprised to see this issue being closed so quickly especially given that we did not have sufficient time to respond and discuss this in more detail. Responding to Rob’s initial comments: > Common practice for RDF -- Isn't our primary focus. We aim for compatibility and following best practices where possible, but not at the expense of ease of understanding and implementation. I understand and agree, but see next comments... > Allow multiple languages -- Is a big concern, and one that is addressed already with Choice + TextualBody with dc:language. It is explicit that it is a choice between two comparable resources, and not simply two different bodies. I don’t see how having a Choice with multiple Textual Bodies each of them with a dc:language will help make it “easier to understand and to implement”, especially since JSON-LD allows you to have language-map to represent literals in multiple languages… what could be easier? Also, conceptually, there is nothing saying that all choices are closely related, in this case representing multiple facets of the same thing. > Language is explicit -- I think that it is explicit already. It's associated with the resource, not the literal. This is where I feel lies the biggest problem... as you mentioned the dc:language is meant to sate the language of the resource (and not the language of the metadata describing the resource). So, in this case, what is the resource? -- GitHub Notification of comment by hugomanguinhas Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/149#issuecomment-185231015 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2016 14:35:45 UTC