- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:32:54 +1100
- To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Cc: "Pierre-Antoine Champin" <swlists-040405@champin.net>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote: > Silvia Pfeiffer さんは書きました: >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote: >> > > Understand, and sorry for the misunderstanding on my side. The tricky part > will be the API design, when we have to define return types for e.g. > getCreator . Of course we could say "text or URI", but what happens with the > URI? Is it resolved? What happens if the resolution does not lead to RDF > data but to an image? And so on. I see where you're coming from. The way I looked at it was that a string (or whatever data type we define) would be returned that is the data element. For RDF that means that the RDF link has to be resolved and the actual data element retrieved before it is returned through the API. In that way, the API always returns the same. It just means that RDF is a different way of specifying the data. A structured way. Think of it as a database behind your data elements. And because it is a standard and web-based database, we could specify more clearly how that data is to be retrieved. But we don't have to - it may well be out of scope. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 00:33:30 UTC