>> 2. For an annotationByBlob, which enables arbitrary assertions, >> limiting the content to facts makes sense. However, allowing >> arbitrary XML, as you suggested could be done in principle, might >> raise issues related to the translation of arbitrary XML content >> into RDF. >Well, my thought is that not all annotations need be translatable to >RDF. If someone wants to associate, I don't know, SVG or SVG >fragments with some entity or axioms...who am I to disagree? Or >perhaps someone wants to use a RIF XML dialect, or what have you. I >don't see a huge advantage in *requiring* a property to a literal in >the annotation, though that's probably harmless, just a little >annoying for the XML person. My concern here is that we won't be able to go from XML to N3 or RDF/XML representation without loosing information, which seems to give a higher status to the XML representation. I think that, although it could be cumbersome in some cases, we can stick to RDF statements by referring to resources, such SVG or a SVG fragments, by their URI instead of "inlining" them in annotations. Best regards, Achille.
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 23:55:37 UTC