proposal: use +json postfix to mark json annotation values

[tarilabs]

Hi,
I'm following up to what was presented yesterday call, with #44, #49

I'd like to propose a more explicit way to distinguish annotations that are holding a string-based-representation of a known format which is not a pure string scalar, in this case string-based-representation of a JSON object.

This stems from the fact that in OCI spec, Annotations are indeed key-value pair of str-str scalars only.
ref https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/64294bd7a2bf2537e1a6a34d687caae70300b0c4/annotations.md?plain=1#L9

I think using a string representation of a structured JSON object in the value is more than fine,
but imho we can make it even more explicit beyond writing in the document:

value is the JSON string

ref https://github.com/CloudNativeAI/model-spec/blob/main/docs/annotations.md?plain=1#L11C84-L11C108

by using a conventional +suffix making it even prominent without referring to the doc itself.

wdyt?

[caozhuozi]

I also don’t like putting a struct into a plain string.

BTW, contributors from China are currently on holiday, so please expect some delays. ;-)

[tarilabs]

I also don’t like putting a struct into a plain string.

fair take.
However, this is not the goal of this PR :) this PR goal is to establish a good practice to enforce client/annotation "format" without having to rely solely on the document of the spec; thought I'd clarify that

BTW, contributors from China are currently on holiday, so please expect some delays. ;-)

no worries, thanks for the headsup! Happy also to discuss at the next community call

[caozhuozi]

However, this is not the goal of this PR :) this PR goal is to establish a good practice to enforce client/annotation "format" without having to rely solely on the document of the spec;

Oh, the +json suffix actually helps! In my opinion, it makes the plain string much more acceptable.😂

[chlins]

lgtm

[chlins]

@tarilabs Thanks, this change makes sense to me.

[gaius-qi]

LGTM