- From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 18:16:18 +0200
- To: public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi all,
http://openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#BodyEmbed suggests to use
dc:format. I was wondering whether it'd be okay to use dcterms:format
instead? My reasoning is simply that I predominantly use dcterms, and
don't wish to introduce dc (elements). Tough luck?
I find cnt to be (unnecessarily?) cumbersome in RDFa when used with
oa:hasBody and cnt:ContentAsText. Use case: representing comments on a
webpage which include HTML. This forces me to add markup that's only for
machine consumption i.e., <span property="dcterms:format"
content="text/html"></span></div>, and possibly even <span
property="cnt:characterEncoding" content="utf-8"></span>, <span
property="dcterms:language" content="en"></span>. I think we can agree
that the above information is not very "interesting" to a human-reader
on a webpage.
Leaving dcterms:format would mean that the consumer has to further
process - I'm okay with this if there is no sensible alternative.
Are there any workarounds people employing? How does the following look:
<div rel="oa:hasBody">
<div about="http://example.org/foo" property="dcterms:description"
datatype="rdf:HTML">
<p>foo</p>
</div>
</div>
[Note that the rdf:HTML datatype is left as non-normative in RDF 1.1:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-html ]
Thoughts?
Thanks,
-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2015 16:16:48 UTC