- From: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:19:47 -0400
- To: Matthew Wilson <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>, www-annotation@w3.org
Currently all annotations are of type rdf:type a:Annotation (namespace a=http://www.w3.org/2000/10/annotation-ns#). They typically also have a more specific annotation subclass type e.g. rdf:type aT:Comment (namespace aT =http://www.w3.org/2000/10/annotationType#). It is also possible for a group to define other annotation subtypes and use them. The a:Annotation could naturally be left out and just infer it from the more specific type by using the knowledge about subClassOf definition between the types. We have not currently done it for couple of reasons related to history and optimization. Marja At 05:54 PM 10/17/2002 +0100, Matthew Wilson wrote: >In this message: > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-annotation/2002JulDec/0000.html > >it seemed that there was confusion over the correct way to indicate the >type of an annotation. > >Jim Ley thought that annotations should have an rdf:type of a:Annotation >and could optionally have an a:annotationType which described the >annotation type in more detail. > >But the protocol page indicates that there can be two different rdf:type's. > >Can anyone clarify this? > >Matthew Wilson
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 08:39:37 UTC