Re[6]: SVG --> HTML/TXT for searching and accessibility


Wednesday, June 12, 2002, 5:45:48 PM, you wrote:

Jim> "Ivan Herman" <>

>> However,  as  I  said  in  my  first  mail,  I  regard  the
>> vocabulary,  ie,  the schema, as really only the first step,
>> so there is no stability there. I also wait for the ontology
>> group to come up with OWL and there are probably quite a lot
>> of  extensions  to  be  added once that is out. SO this is a
>> moving target.

Jim> Okay, are you happy for me to use them with more liberal range/domain in
Jim> the current vocab, or would you then consider them more appropriate in a
Jim> general image description schema.

Jim,  I  do  not see that as an either or question. I do not
have  any  problem  whatsoever  if  you  use  them in a more
liberal  way.  That said, what I would really like to see is
the  emergence  of a general image description schema but, I
am afraid, this is still a long way to go!

>> The latter would allow you to refer to a full
>> viewport, for example, and make statements on those!

Jim> I already have properties which allow me to say that, as an extension of
Jim> my raster work, a part of a viewport is just like part of a raster image.
Jim> I define it as an area defined by an SVG path see
Jim> <URL: > which is generated by my
Jim> tool
Jim> <URL: >
Jim> Little write up, the related:
Jim> <URL: >
Jim> has some.

Jim> For annotating content you don't control XPointer is no use, you need to
Jim> anchor the information to human level content, not structural, as the
Jim> structural doesn't persist, and if you're taking a "snapshot" of the
Jim> image, you might aswell embed the annotations within the document, so I
Jim> don't think XPointer is going to be much use - at the very least you'll
Jim> need to include a hash of the document so tools can know if your
Jim> XPointers are still valid. (Obviously some XPointers are okay
Jim> id('chicken') etc. but not in general.)

Right,  XPointer  has  strong limitations here. I would more
think  of  using the svgpointer mechanism. But your point on
human level content is well taken.

>> However, my vision (sorry, dream...) is to have an authoring
>> tool which a) does a proper job in grouping graphics element
>> sensibly and b) gives the author the possibility to annotate
>> the  file properly both through the title/desc facilities as
>> well as with metadata. One can always dream...

Jim>  A dream I don't think is practical, the grouping isn't possible in so
Jim> many situations, but we can escape the idea that the mark-up is the only
Jim> place grouping can occur on the semantic level, we can choose any
Jim> groupings within the RDF.

Yep,  that  is  absolutely  true, grouping within RDF is not
really  exploited  yet.  I think the most important lesson I
learned  from  my  own  exercise  is  that  a good interplay
between  the  information  in the RDF and in the SVG part is
the real key.

Jim> Jim.


Ivan Herman
Head of Offices, World Wide Web Consortium
C/o Dutch Office of W3C at CWI
Kruislaan 413, 1098SJ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
tel: +31 20 5924163
fax: +31 20 5924312
mobile: +33 6 0887 2517

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2002 03:29:14 UTC