W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > November 2008

Re: URIs as value

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:53:39 +0900
Message-ID: <491A2913.5070804@w3.org>
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



> Cheers,
> Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 00:54:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:30 UTC