- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:10:10 +0100
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation@w3.org
Dear all, > Perhaps the examples should be a bit clearer about where the actual > semantic tag URI can be found rather than using the generic <body1> > URIs: > > <anno1> a oa:Annotation ; > oa:motivatedBy oa:tagging ; > oa:hasBody <http://example.com/vocab/term1> ; > oa:hasTarget <target1> ; > > <http://example.com/vocab/term1> a oa:SemanticTag . > <target1> a dctypes:Image . > > (As almost always the terms would come from a different namespace) Perhaps I will say something that you have already discussed at large, but the more I think, and the more I'm under the impression that you want to re-invent ctag:Tag with oa:SemanticTag. Am I wrong? By ctag:Tag, I'm referring to common tag specification, which was hype 3 or 4 years ago, http://www.commontag.org/QuickStartGuide because of a nice list of people who claim they will support it. However, we know that this has never flied. Sindice does not report a lot of document that contains a ctag:Tag class. But still, how oa:SemanticTag plans to differ from ctag:Tag? Best regards. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech Multimedia Communications Department 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 15:23:50 UTC