- From: Morten Frederiksen <mof-rdf@mfd-consult.dk>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:44:43 +0100
- To: semantic-photolist@unitboy.com
On Friday 27 February 2004 13:11, Benjamin Nowack wrote: > I can see three options then: > - create width and height with domain=Image Not an option, methinks, re the confusion issue. > - re-use width and height from Jim's SVG vocab (domain=Resource) That could work, but not really desirable. > - create regionWidth and regionHeight with domain=Region That could also work, but then 'width' and 'height' would be better (the region part is already in the namespace). > Do we need width and height > for regions at all (re option 3)? It'd be another "boundingbox in 1D", I > guess.. That's a very good point. We could very well use that instead, it'd help the adoption of boundingBox, and not confuse anyone. However, should someone wish to add widht and height properties, it'd be better to have them defined, but discouraged, than not at all. I'm not sure what the best approach would be. > examples would definitely be helpful. my doc-publisher doesn't support them > yet. I'll try to add the feature at the weekend. Great. Regards, Morten. ================= This is the TEMPORARY discussion list for the W3 Semantic-Photo History Project. For questions, contact greg@fotonotes.net. Subscribe Instructions To: semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com Body: subscribe Unsubscribe Instructions To: semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com Body: unsubscribe Help To: semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com Body: help
Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 15:46:03 UTC