- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 11:09:23 -0700
- To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
- Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Paolo, On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> > wrote: > 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. Well, they could understand it by following through to the "Source" URI. > 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> Where that's a document, and the intent is that it should be rendered as HTML? > <http://omim.org/entry/104760> a oa:Tag; > Somebody else says only: > ... oa:hasBody <http://omim.org/entry/104760> Where the intent is clear that it's a Tag, not a document. > 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. Right. But ... the chances of other people using that URI as a document that should be rendered? Yes it's possible, but seems unlikely? And we don't recommend doing that, just the same as the home page / person case. > 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? This is what we recommend already, using a different URI and linking it to the document :) Rob
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 18:09:51 UTC