W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Last Ultimate Final Call :)

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 09:55:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtmt___FWqbdifLXw4AG+10ArA4ZH0mqj=c7gOvbCZ0uBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
I agree that we can't risk just minting #tag URIs in someone elses
namespace to try to work around the HTTP Range 14 problem.

It would have to be some very unique tag so we know it's "ours" - like
#ff3f6942-dc0d-484f-becb-b6eea4a1d6b3 - which would just be silly.

I also of course agree that you "should not do that" - return a
document for a "non-informational resource", but sadly the real world
is our domain, and there is no specification now that mandates
resources for "real world things/concepts" to NOT present
representations. In fact it is core to the HTTP architecture that the
Representation is distinct from the Resource.

So - for your suggestion below:

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

> <anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
>   oa:hasBody <tagSpRes1> ;
>   oa:hasTarget <target1> .
>
> <tagSpRes1> a oa:SpecificResource , oa:[Semantic]Tag ;
>   oa:hasSource <http://omim.org/entry/104760> ;

This is a beautiful solution.

So am I right in assuming that you are suggesting that
oa:[Semantic]Tag is a subclass of oa:SpecificResource  (we would
always use this pattern for semantic tagging), not just a suggested
"rescue" pattern where you can't put http://omim.org/entry/104760
directly in oa:hasBody because it is (could be) a retrievable
document?




-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 09:55:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:03 UTC