- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:18:32 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org, "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
Jim, The reason I made them for SVG objects was because I was using them for SVG only... However, as I said in my first mail, I regard the vocabulary, ie, the schema, as really only the first step, so there is no stability there. I also wait for the ontology group to come up with OWL and there are probably quite a lot of extensions to be added once that is out. SO this is a moving target. As for the second issue: the current xslt is quick and dirty and needs work. One thing to be done is, obviously, to allow for resource URI-s to be external as well, so that I could describe SVG files without touching them. If I do that, I would need the full power of xpointer, or the svg pointer possibility (you know, those features which are awesome, well described in the SVG text, and nobody has implemented them yet ;-(). The latter would allow you to refer to a full viewport, for example, and make statements on those! However, my vision (sorry, dream...) is to have an authoring tool which a) does a proper job in grouping graphics element sensibly and b) gives the author the possibility to annotate the file properly both through the title/desc facilities as well as with metadata. One can always dream... Ivan Wednesday, June 12, 2002, 5:00:43 PM, you wrote: Jim> "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> >> I did experimented with something like that. See >> >> http://www.w3.org/2001/svgRdf/ >> >> although this text is quite full of smallish bugs, a way >> better version should be on the svgopen conference pages as >> soon as they put the papers on-line. Jim> Oooh interesting stuff... Jim> I'd especially like to reuse the Layout and Positional Predicates in my Jim> image (raster aswell as SVG) annotation work, but their Domain and Range Jim> are innapropriate - did you have some special reason for limiting them to Jim> SVG objects when we're really just describing elements in an image/scene? Jim> Would you be willing to move them outside this vocabulary or at least Jim> changing the domain/range to be less specific? (If not I'll probably be Jim> duplicating it to achieve the same, which is obviously unfortunate) Jim> The other problem I have with it is that it still requires the SVG Jim> document to be appropriately authored with appropriately id'd groupings Jim> and not having "things" in the picture spread between two distinct points Jim> in the file. Both of these you get if you're either annotating other Jim> peoples SVG, or are using the output of some automatic or visual tool. * Jim> So it would be nice if we could also describe regions within the viewbox Jim> rather than just elements within SVG - which we need to do to describe Jim> raster images of course. Jim> I'll certainly be looking at implementing something on this now I've got Jim> a schema, I just need to convince someone that RDF is much better than Jim> his own invented XML and javascript. Jim> Jim. Jim> * XPointer/XPath can address the first, but these are generally not Jim> stable between edits, so are an impractical solution IMO, see Annotea Jim> discussions. ---- Ivan Herman Head of Offices, World Wide Web Consortium C/o Dutch Office of W3C at CWI Kruislaan 413, 1098SJ Amsterdam The Netherlands tel: +31 20 5924163 fax: +31 20 5924312 mobile: +33 6 0887 2517 URI: http://www.w3.org/People/all#ivan
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 11:17:04 UTC