Hi Stian, all, On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes < soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > 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? > I am confused now, again :-( I understood that oa:[SemanticTag] would be similar to oa:Tag and both could be applied for either resources or specific resources. I do not see why it would be a subclass of oa:SpecificResource. Cheers, Leyla > > > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team > School of Computer Science > The University of Manchester > >
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 10:38:44 UTC