- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 00:04:29 +0000
- To: Achille Fokoue <achille@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Web Ontology Language (OWL) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
(Is there a reason why you cc public-owl-wg-request@w3.org? Seems
odd...)
On Nov 6, 2007, at 11:55 PM, Achille Fokoue wrote:
>
> >> 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.
Why? I mean, isn't this just a function of the RDF mapping? You can
always map:
SubClassOf( Annotations("<b>Hiya Mom!</b>"), C, D)
to
_:x a Statement.
_:x hasAnnotationBlob "<b>Hiya Mom!</b>".
#rest of the reified statement
so what's the problem?
> 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.
Just because the *content* of an annotationAssertions is arbitrary
XML doesn't mean that an annotationByBlob can't be RDFed.
This isn't saying that arbitrary XML is necessary, but I don't
understand your objection.
Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 00:20:32 UTC