- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 02:48:47 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Matthew Wilson <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>
- cc: <www-annotation@w3.org>
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Matthew Wilson wrote: > At 06:00 01/05/01 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote: > > >(Just a quick note to capture an idea that cropped up over lunch with Marja) > > > >Our XML/RDF annotation vocabularies should capture the language primarily > >used in any textual content within the annotation. For eg., as a > >dc:language property of the annotation. > > Would current clients break if we started posting annotations with > dc:language properties straightaway? Or should we wait until such a usage > is officially sanctioned? Sensible RDF applications should always "expect the unexpected", ie. not be suprised to find a variety of additional pieces of data ("annotations", in a broad sense of the term) decorating RDF graphs. From what I know of the 3 Annotea clients, they should all be OK with additional properties attached to an annotation, since they use an RDF parser rather than match against hard-coded XML encodings of the data structure. Dan
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2001 02:48:52 UTC