Re: Rich Annotation System Proposal

>> 2.  For an annotationByBlob, which enables arbitrary assertions, 
>> limiting the content to facts makes sense.  However, allowing 
>> arbitrary XML, as you suggested could be done in principle, might 
>> raise issues related to the translation of arbitrary XML content 
>> into RDF.

>Well, my thought is that not all annotations need be translatable to 
>RDF. If someone wants to associate, I don't know, SVG or SVG 
>fragments with some entity or axioms...who am I to disagree? Or 
>perhaps someone wants to use a RIF XML dialect, or what have you. I 
>don't see a huge advantage in *requiring* a property to a literal in 
>the annotation, though that's probably harmless, just a little 
>annoying for the XML person.

My concern here is that we won't be able to go from XML to N3 or RDF/XML 
representation without loosing information, which seems to give a higher 
status to the XML representation.  I think that, although it could be 
cumbersome in some cases, we can stick to RDF statements by referring to 
resources, such SVG or a SVG fragments, by their URI instead of "inlining" 
them in annotations. 

Best regards,
Achille.