- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:13:27 -0000
- To: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>At 2002-09-01 11:16, Bill de hÓra wrote: >>Ok. Self contained in RDF is handing someone an RDF graph. Sending >>resource representations around with the graph is extra. > >Think of the image as a literal rather than a "resource representation", >just like those bits of text that pepper most RDF. An image we've encoded into a jpeg should be a resource, especially as it is likely to contain metadata of its own, and people are likely to want to say lots more about the image. i.e. you say it's a photo of you, I might want to say that it's a particular fine example of the photographers art in my lump of RDF. >True, but that's really the same as any literal. If I really need to make >statements about some image, I can always do something like this >(assuming I can specify MIME-type and encoding): Certainly you can say things about it in your document, but I can't say anything in it in mine, without repeating all the literal data (and using some method to say it's unambigous.) However packaging images and RDF descriptions in single packages is something I've wanted to do to, I've found two approaches, the first where the image is the important thing, I can embed the RDF inside the image using Adobe's XMP method, RDFPic and Dan Brickley's online service and Adobe's tools can all access this information. Alternative I embed the RDF in SVG, I can include my images within an SVG document, and also RDF, this gives me a well known and understood method for having images and RDF within the one document. An example of this is - http://jibbering.com/2002/9/svg-rdf.svg (Where I've taken the image and some RDF generated by http://jibbering.com/svg/AnnotateImage.html ) Whilst I've used SVG I'd've thought any method which allows you to package RDF and other representations in a single document is preferable to literals, if packaging is required. Jim.
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 06:21:14 UTC