W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Re[4]: SVG --> HTML/TXT for searching and accessibility

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:45:48 -0000
Message-ID: <02fb01c21228$395bbb20$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, <www-svg@w3.org>

"Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>

> 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.

Okay, are you happy for me to use them with more liberal range/domain in
the current vocab, or would you then consider them more appropriate in a
general image description schema.

> The latter would allow you to refer to a full
> viewport, for example, and make statements on those!

I already have properties which allow me to say that, as an extension of
my raster work, a part of a viewport is just like part of a raster image.
I define it as an area defined by an SVG path see
<URL: http://jibbering.com/rdfsvg/example.rdf > which is generated by my
tool
<URL: http://jibbering.com/svg/AnnotateImage.html >
Little write up, the related:
<URL: http://rdfweb.org/2002/svgsemantics/picsng-demo.html >
has some.

For annotating content you don't control XPointer is no use, you need to
anchor the information to human level content, not structural, as the
structural doesn't persist, and if you're taking a "snapshot" of the
image, you might aswell embed the annotations within the document, so I
don't think XPointer is going to be much use - at the very least you'll
need to include a hash of the document so tools can know if your
XPointers are still valid. (Obviously some XPointers are okay
id('chicken') etc. but not in general.)

> 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...

 A dream I don't think is practical, the grouping isn't possible in so
many situations, but we can escape the idea that the mark-up is the only
place grouping can occur on the semantic level, we can choose any
groupings within the RDF.

Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 11:48:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:22 GMT