W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Rich Annotation System Proposal

From: Achille Fokoue <achille@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:55:17 -0500
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Web Ontology Language (OWL) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, public-owl-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBD137D1D.66914955-ON8525738B.00811E08-8525738B.008367A0@us.ibm.com>
>> 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.
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 23:55:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT