- From: Morten Frederiksen <mof-rdf@mfd-consult.dk>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:18:06 +0100
- To: semantic-photolist@unitboy.com
Masahide Kanzaki <post@kanzaki.com> wrote: >>Also, I see in the logs that it is being suggested that regions should be >>identified by URI. I'm not sure I agree on that, since as Libby pointed out, >>regions are not directly displayable, and it paves the way for somewhat >>easier "desctruction" of regions by mistake. > >Fragment id's for region seems tricky, because there are almost infinite >combinations of coordinates in an image. I think it's reasonable to have >rdf:ID's in annotation's region constructs. I mean, not: > <Region rdf:about="image-uri#fragID"> >but: > <Region rdf:ID="idInAnnotation"> That's a good idea, for constructing the URIs, even though URIs are opaque anyway... >>However, that would make it possible for a friendly service to add >>boundingBox properties to regions that didn't have them already... >You mean a third party can add boudingBox to the annotation without it ? Yep, that's what I thought. >Maybe that's an idea. And I think idInAnnotation can help this. Make sense ? Indeed, URIs are necessary for this scenario, but I'm still not sure it doesn't have drawbacks... Regards, Morten Frederiksen --- A bird in the hand is worth what it will bring. -- <URL: http://xml.mfd-consult.dk/foaf/explorer/?foaf=morten.rdf > ================================== 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 Thursday, 22 January 2004 13:20:09 UTC