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

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

From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:16:23 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-153867813-1446671783-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

> On 5 Nov 2015, at 05:09, BigBlueHat <notifications@github.com> 
> We can currently express relationships (even vague ones) within an 
Annotation (see #98 (comment) 
> 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?

Well… if we are in RDF land for a moment, then I do not see what this 
is necessary. That type of relationship between a body and a target 
can be found out by a fairly trivial SPARQL query; using SPARQL as 
some sort of a rule engine (using SPARQL CONSTRUCT) one can generate 
new graphs with this relations, etc. 

RDF people have powerful tools already, we do not have to add 
additional things. Non-RDF people will not care…

> 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 registry 
 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):
> bookmark <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-bookmark> 
-- specific to bookmarking
> describes <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6892> -- description only
> describedby 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-powder-dr-20090901/#semlink> -- 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 highlighted 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub 

GitHub Notif of comment by iherman
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 21:16:27 UTC

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