- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 16:27:53 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
Thanks @r12a for writing all this down. And, at the moment, I am torn. * On the one hand, I think that the situation would become indeed much clearer if a body (more exactly, in our terminology, a Specific Resource or a Textual Body describing a body) would indeed use 0 or one `language` tag. In case the use case is to have different body resources out there that are conceptually equivalent but are in different languages, then we can use Choice or some of the (newly re-established) composites, to separate them from one another. This makes the model clean, and also covers the problems @r12a has. * On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact that, out there, there are messy resources that we want to annotate; @gsergiu has clearly indicated that he is facing such a situation. Texts may be out there that _do_ mix languages (whether we like it or not), and the only way of conveying this information in an annotation is to allow for more than one languages. I believe the way forward is to say something like: "an annotation SHOULD have zero or one language terms, and MAY have more than 1 in exceptional cases." @gsergiu's use case may be quoted in an informal note where the MAY comes into effect, but we should also note that implementations/users should really try to use one language, because otherwise problems may occur. And stop there... -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/213#issuecomment-221023571 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 23 May 2016 16:27:54 UTC