- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:29:08 -0000
- To: www-annotation@w3.org
"Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.30.0301262115510.8589-100000@tux.w3.org... > > in the protocol document [1] all the examples for context use a literal as > its value. The schema doesn't specify any domain or range. > > In my annotools I used an rdf:resource as the object, on the basis that it > was going to be an Xpointer or a URI. The ZAnnot server is returning this as > if it were a literal. This changed between the old and new protocol, it's the one area of concern I have with the new protocol, context seems problematical, I still want to be able to annotate svg/raster images via my RDF img parts (like hte RDF generated in http://jibbering.com/svg/annotateimage.html - example: http://jibbering.com/rdfsvg/example.rdf ) which makes for the context to be a lot more complicated object than is really expressable in a literal. I've been trying to think of an alternative suggestion, but not come up with one. > And what do implementations expect? I don't distinguish between literal/resource, if they smell the same they're used the same. Jim.
Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 06:32:06 UTC