- 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