W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > January 2016

Re: [web-annotation] Definition of specific resources: @Type

From: gsergiu via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 20:58:04 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-172090772-1452891482-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Actually I’m a developer implementing the WA standard.
I have to parse the json annotation to a domain model.
As the bodies can be SimpleResource or SpecificResources I must know 
to which class I have to parse the body.

Given the definition of the type attribute, I would expect that this 
holds the information I need to decide when I have to parse the body 
to a SimpleResource and when to parse to a SpecificResource.

@type
Used to set the data type of a 
node<https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#dfn-node> or typed 
value<https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#dfn-typed-value>. This keyword is
 described in section 6.4 Typed 
Values<https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#typed-values>.

I don’t think that every client should implement custom rules to 
identify the class of the body…

If the missing of @type attribute should imply the body is a 
SimpleResource, this is reasonable implication.
However if for a SpecificResource the @type is missing, I don’t find 
it reasonable to evaluate the values of a list of properties in order 
to guess that the Application that created the Annotation was using a 
SpecificResource in the body….

I would suggest that @type property is not mandatory for 
SimpleResource but it should be mandatory for SpecificResource.

In any case, I think that the standard should write at least a 
non-normative Note to clarify this issue (how to identify the @type if
 this is missing).
Are there other developers having a different opinion?


From: Rob Sanderson [mailto:notifications@github.com]
Sent: Freitag, 15. Jänner 2016 19:53
To: w3c/web-annotation
Cc: Gordea Sergiu
Subject: Re: [web-annotation] Definition of specific resources: @Type 
(#137)


This discussion already took place with the outcome that is currently 
in the documents that @type/rdf:type was not mandatory for 
SpecificResource. I don't see any new information to reopen that issue
 beyond feedback that type is expected by implementers.

I'm going to leave this open, but I do not think we need to discuss it
 until there's additional feedback from the community.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on 
GitHub<https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/137#issuecomment-172050477>.


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by gsergiu
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/137#issuecomment-172090772
 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 15 January 2016 20:58:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:43 UTC