- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:00:32 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
> On 28 Mar 2016, at 18:23, Rob Sanderson <notifications@github.com>
wrote:
>
> We should definitely be consistent between SvgSelector and CssStyle,
that's definitely a bug regardless of the outcome of this discussion.
>
> It seems the same as a textual body to me as well, from a protocol
perspective. I can either retrieve the body/stylesheet/svg by
dereferencing the IRI supplied in id, or I can use the content
provided in the graph. If all three are consistent, then I'm happy...
so ...
>
> To extend your proposal, can we drop everything down to using the
more generic value and get rid of text, TextualBody and Content
completely?
>
That works for me. One additional thing: 'format' might be optional.
It is probably fine for the Text, but for, say, an SVGSelector or a
CssStyle it is obvious that the value is SVG, resp. CSS, ie, adding a
format at that point seems to be unnecessary
Ivan
> e.g. as above, plus change this:
>
> {
> "type": "Annotation",
> "body": {
> "type": "TextualBody", // oa:TextualBody
> "format": "text/plain",
> "text": "I love this page!" // oa:text
> },
> "target": "http://example.com/index.html"
> }
> to:
>
> {
> "type": "Annotation",
> "body": {
> "type": "Text", //dcmitypes:Text
> "format": "text/plain",
> "value": "I love this page!" // rdf:value
> },
> "target": "http://example.com/index.html"
> }
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/191#issuecomment-202470464>
----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
--
GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/191#issuecomment-202815147
using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 10:00:34 UTC