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

Re: Last Ultimate Final Call :)

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 11:31:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUEtf1ZA2=wna1_iNrPpxgzzE98CF4a4ZjAj_-TAo5gmNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Paolo Ciccarese
<paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>

>> > 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 :)
> Wait, that is exactly my point. Not 'a different URI' in general, that would
> create a mess I believe.
> How do we feel in pushing for a specific way of using "the different URI"
> #something?

I don't like it, especially with the clarification in RDF 1.1 that
fragments identify the element within the hosting format, not a
semantic resource.


So if there was a "tag" in the underlying document, then it would
refer to that, not the use of the URI as a semantic tag.  It still has
the same collision problems.

The clean way, IMO, is:

<anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
  oa:hasBody <tagSpRes1> ;
  oa:hasTarget <target1> .

<tagSpRes1> a oa:SpecificResource , oa:[Semantic]Tag ;
  oa:hasSource <http://omim.org/entry/104760> ;

Which is just a clarification of what we already say in the doc, that
you mint a new URI and link it to the original URI.

Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 18:31:55 UTC

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