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

Re: Confusion over RDF for annotation type

From: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:19:47 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Matthew Wilson <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>, www-annotation@w3.org

Currently all annotations are of type rdf:type a:Annotation (namespace 
a=http://www.w3.org/2000/10/annotation-ns#). They typically also have a 
more specific annotation subclass type e.g. rdf:type aT:Comment (namespace 
aT =http://www.w3.org/2000/10/annotationType#). It is also possible for a 
group to define other annotation subtypes and use them.

The a:Annotation could naturally be left out and just infer it from the 
more specific type by using the knowledge about subClassOf definition 
between the types. We have not currently done it for couple of reasons 
related to history and optimization.


At 05:54 PM 10/17/2002 +0100, Matthew Wilson wrote:

>In this message:
>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
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 08:39:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:55 UTC