- From: Rob Sanderson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:13:35 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
It's a non issue, sorry. There's no solution for the challenges with RDF that I already outlined: > RDF does not allow for both language and data type to be associated with the same literal. Thus you cannot have a string that is both text/plain and in English. This is a critical requirement that language tagged strings cannot accomplish, and thus we have to work around it by mandating a TextualBody resource with predicates (dc:format and dc:language). > Given number 1, we could still allow language tagged strings... but that would be very confusing, especially as there would be both type (rdf:type) and @type (data type of the literal), value (rdfs:value) and @value (the value of a literal), and language (dc:language) and @language (the language tag of the literal). Also, it would be inconsistent between @type (literal) and format (resource) as to where to put the data type. So language maps don't help. And yes, the options of a choice are all ... options of a choice. You pick one of them. What other requirements are there that aren't supported? There's no use case or requirement to say how closely related the options are or not. If you have one, please describe it. The resource is the body ... as per the issue. The language of the resource is thus the language of the body resource ... there is no metadata here. -- GitHub Notification of comment by azaroth42 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/149#issuecomment-185356044 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:13:37 UTC