W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Last Ultimate Final Call :)

From: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 12:48:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFPX2kAwF6sbZjxGJ5=WdPXK9OrNF=wmDEK8pdk7Zd+KvOx9kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks Stian :)
>
> And just to reinforce the last part of previous mail, I absolutely
> understand the real world problem that people use the URIs of
> documents to mean a concept that they describe.  Please, if there's a
> solution that works with multiple bodies of different types, including
> multiplicity constructs, then it will be done!
>


It is a general problem. However, I am afraid of proliferation of mistaken
- according to our model - but common practice tagging to have consequences.

I agree that the current Tag solution is not ideal. And I also agree that
it is not good modeling but if I have a URI that returns an entry in a
database in HTML and I don't have an alternative URI for identifying that
concept I might use that rather than introducing another URI that nobody in
the community would understand.

Question is: are we 110% sure it is not going to be a problem?

In other words:
I say
... oa:hasBody <http://omim.org/entry/104760>

<http://omim.org/entry/104760>  a oa:Tag;

Somebody else says only:
... oa:hasBody <http://omim.org/entry/104760>

Now in the open world the second annotation is going to gain the Tag nature.
Again, we do not recommend the above behavior but it is very very common.

So how about recommending to do #tag on the URI of the page?
Like: http://omim.org/entry/104760#tag
Again, not ideal but it could help. No?

Paolo
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 17:49:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:22 UTC