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.

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 

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 

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 Notification of comment by gsergiu
Please view or discuss this issue at 
 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