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

Re: Rich Annotation System Proposal

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 00:04:29 +0000
Message-Id: <1E7F2F1D-7105-472D-96D4-04FAC463808D@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Web Ontology Language (OWL) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Achille Fokoue <achille@us.ibm.com>

(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 GMT

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