Re: [web-annotation] value or text on the definition of an SVG selector

> On 28 Mar 2016, at 18:23, Rob Sanderson <> 
> 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 
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

> 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": ""
> }
> to:
> {
>  "type": "Annotation",
>  "body": {
>     "type": "Text",    //dcmitypes:Text
>     "format": "text/plain",
>     "value": "I love this page!"    // rdf:value
>   },
>   "target": ""
> }
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub 

Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
mobile: +31-641044153

GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at
 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 10:00:34 UTC