- From: gsergiu via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 20:58:04 +0000
- To: public-annotation@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