W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2004

Re: [w3photo] Image regions

From: Morten Frederiksen <mof-rdf@mfd-consult.dk>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:18:06 +0100
To: semantic-photolist@unitboy.com
Message-ID: <ePBEAtq3ITfX092yn@mfd-consult.dk>

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">
> <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...

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

To:   semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com
Body: help
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2004 13:20:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:21 UTC