W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > November 2008

Re: URIs as value

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:32:54 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830811111632v790bd4bfp9d594f31bd0764fa@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: "Pierre-Antoine Champin" <swlists-040405@champin.net>, public-media-annotation@w3.org

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer さんは書きました:
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
> Understand, and sorry for the misunderstanding on my side. The tricky part
> will be the API design, when we have to define return types for e.g.
> getCreator . Of course we could say "text or URI", but what happens with the
> URI? Is it resolved? What happens if the resolution does not lead to RDF
> data but to an image? And so on.

I see where you're coming from.

The way I looked at it was that a string (or whatever data type we
define) would be returned that is the data element. For RDF that means
that the RDF link has to be resolved and the actual data element
retrieved before it is returned through the API. In that way, the API
always returns the same. It just means that RDF is a different way of
specifying the data. A structured way. Think of it as a database
behind your data elements. And because it is a standard and web-based
database, we could specify more clearly how that data is to be
retrieved. But we don't have to - it may well be out of scope.

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 00:33:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:31 UTC