- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:00:43 -0000
- To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, <www-svg@w3.org>
"Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> > I did experimented with something like that. See > > http://www.w3.org/2001/svgRdf/ > > although this text is quite full of smallish bugs, a way > better version should be on the svgopen conference pages as > soon as they put the papers on-line. Oooh interesting stuff... I'd especially like to reuse the Layout and Positional Predicates in my image (raster aswell as SVG) annotation work, but their Domain and Range are innapropriate - did you have some special reason for limiting them to SVG objects when we're really just describing elements in an image/scene? Would you be willing to move them outside this vocabulary or at least changing the domain/range to be less specific? (If not I'll probably be duplicating it to achieve the same, which is obviously unfortunate) The other problem I have with it is that it still requires the SVG document to be appropriately authored with appropriately id'd groupings and not having "things" in the picture spread between two distinct points in the file. Both of these you get if you're either annotating other peoples SVG, or are using the output of some automatic or visual tool. * So it would be nice if we could also describe regions within the viewbox rather than just elements within SVG - which we need to do to describe raster images of course. I'll certainly be looking at implementing something on this now I've got a schema, I just need to convince someone that RDF is much better than his own invented XML and javascript. Jim. * XPointer/XPath can address the first, but these are generally not stable between edits, so are an impractical solution IMO, see Annotea discussions.
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 11:03:33 UTC