W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > November 2015

[web-annotation] Do we need an `annotates` relationship for use in RDF and/or Link Relationships?

From: BigBlueHat via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:09:06 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-115148336-1446671345-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
BigBlueHat has just created a new issue for 

== Do we need an `annotates` relationship for use in RDF and/or Link 
Relationships? ==
We can currently express relationships (even vague ones) within an 
Annotation (see 

However, we still do not have (for better or worse) the ability to 
state `body annotates target`. We have instead `annotation hasBody 
body; annotation hasTarget target`.

Should we define an `annotates` relationship?

Or (perhaps) a link relationship that could be used with either an 
annotation or a body?

GET /blog-post/comment-1

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Link: </blog-post>; rel="annotates"

That scenario done now would look like:
GET /blog-post/comment-1

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Link: </blog-post>; rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#hasTarget"

Obviously, if we specified `annotates` in the [link relation 
 we'd also (likely) want to specify the reverse relationship for us in
 the more common scenario of linking from a blog post to any known 

Here are the existing link relationship values that come pretty close 
(but are more specific):
-- specific to bookmarking
 - [describes](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6892) -- description only
 -- same as above; just points the other way
 - [replies](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4685#section-4) -- would 
only work for a direct reply

and...historically (though not part of the registry...yet?)
 - [annotation](http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iiir-html-00) --
 ...you'll have to search for it...[or see it 

See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/101
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 21:09:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:42 UTC