W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-annotation@w3.org > July to December 2002

Re: Confusion over RDF for annotation type

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:15:13 -0400 (EDT)
To: Matthew Wilson <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>
cc: <www-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0210180812420.5162-100000@tux.w3.org>

I think there is confusion.

In the experimental EARL server we set up at W3C the annotations do not have
a type of a:Annotation (where a is the common annotea namespace) at all -
they are merely EARL data.

I suspect that it would have been more useful to make these annotations
perhaps with a type that was different to the existing list (something like
the Dublin Core relation element?). We can experiment further...

Cheers

Charles

On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Matthew Wilson wrote:

>
>In this message:
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-annotation/2002JulDec/0000.html
>
>it seemed that there was confusion over the correct way to indicate the
>type of an annotation.
>
>Jim Ley thought that annotations should have an rdf:type of a:Annotation
>and could optionally have an a:annotationType which described the
>annotation type in more detail.
>
>But the protocol page indicates that there can be two different rdf:type's.
>
>Can anyone clarify this?
>
>Matthew Wilson
>

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI
 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia  fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 78 22
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 08:16:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:19:18 GMT