Re: Question/feedback re: oa:hasBody and cnt:ContentAsText in RDFa

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:

> On 2015-07-25 21:25, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Sarven,
>>
>> One of the considerations here was that you can't have both language and
>> datatype associated with the same literal, so we had to pick two
>> predicates for recording the information and mint a resource for the
>> subject.  We went with Content in RDF as it seemed at the time to have
>> some legs and fulfilled our requirements.  In the Annotation working
>> group, we've minted our own class, as it's clear that CNT is abandoned
>> and will never reach recommendation status.
>>
>
> I may be mixing up a few things here and hope that you can clarify.
>
> Can you please clarify what those two predicates you are referring to? I'm
> only aware of oa:hasBody. Unless you meant something completely different.
>

dc:format and dc:language.

Per the example here:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#embedded-textual-body
Or here:
  http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#BodyEmbed




> oa:hasBody doesn't have a range, and
> http://openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#BodyEmbed talks about /
> examplifies it being purposed as an ObjectProperty. Did I understand this
> correctly, or is it possible to have oa:hasBody as a DatatypeProperty?


In Open Annotation it is not permitted at all.  In the working group's
model it is, but ONLY if it falls under a pretty strict set of conditions:

http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#simple-textual-body





> Using the example from my first email, would this be okay:
>
> <div property="oa:hasBody">
>     <p>foo</p>
> </div>


Yes, in the WG model, that would map to the triple:

_:anno1 oa:hasBody "foo" .



> Aside: IMO, a good HTML+RDFa markup practice is to minimize, if not
> eliminate the differences in information that's given to both humans and
> machines. If machine-processing is the sole concern, there are other RDF
> formats, e.g., N-Triples, which are more suitable for the job. Hence, if
> one is committing to HTML+RDFa, it is arguably preferable to cut down on
> hidden markup (i.e., acting as secondary metadata) which is only "visible"
> to the machines. In a way, RDFa is closely tied to human-friendly documents.
>

Yes. To date there has not been much effort put into RDFa.  The cost/value
ratio is not very good, as to date most systems have taken the model of the
annotation being external to the target, and hence JSON-LD or Turtle are
the prime serializations.  If you want to embed a comment inside a document
that you control, you can pretty much do whatever you want :)

Rob

-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305