- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 19:05:38 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
> I'm not in favor. If there is an option for multiple formats, then it would be advantageous to have those formats explicit. But that means using the JSON-LD @value/@type pattern: {"@value": "2016-01-19", "@type": "xsd:date"} ... which means explaining it and the inevitable confusion between value/@value and type/@type. If it's not explicit anywhere, then we'll end up with garbage in there. True, there is a danger for garbage. But there is also a (possibly higher) danger of people using only dates, without time when the time section is meaningless. Better be prepared by making this official. We can make it explicit in the text for the model. In the vocab we can do something more complex. We can even use OWL to define some sort of a derived datatype. -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/141#issuecomment-172953521 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2016 19:05:40 UTC