- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:53:39 +0900
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Silvia Pfeiffer さんは書きました: > 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. > Thank you for your explanations, Silvia. Let's keep this issue in mind and come back to it then we discuss the API. For now, I have opened an issue to keep track of this thread, see http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6219 Felix > Cheers, > Silvia. > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 00:54:18 UTC