- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 11:31:28 -0700
- To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
- Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> >> > So how about recommending to do #tag on the URI of the page? >> > Like: http://omim.org/entry/104760#tag >> > Again, not ideal but it could help. No? >> >> This is what we recommend already, using a different URI and linking >> it to the document :) > > Wait, that is exactly my point. Not 'a different URI' in general, that would > create a mess I believe. > How do we feel in pushing for a specific way of using "the different URI" > #something? I don't like it, especially with the clarification in RDF 1.1 that fragments identify the element within the hosting format, not a semantic resource. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-fragID So if there was a "tag" in the underlying document, then it would refer to that, not the use of the URI as a semantic tag. It still has the same collision problems. The clean way, IMO, is: <anno1> a oa:Annotation ; oa:hasBody <tagSpRes1> ; oa:hasTarget <target1> . <tagSpRes1> a oa:SpecificResource , oa:[Semantic]Tag ; oa:hasSource <http://omim.org/entry/104760> ; Which is just a clarification of what we already say in the doc, that you mint a new URI and link it to the original URI. Rob
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 18:31:55 UTC