Re: Confusion over RDF for annotation type
Charles McCathieNevile <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.w3c.annotation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I think there is confusion. In the experimental EARL server we set up at W3C the annotations do not have a type of a:Annotation (where a is the common annotea namespace) at all - they are merely EARL data. I suspect that it would have been more useful to make these annotations perhaps with a type that was different to the existing list (something like the Dublin Core relation element?). We can experiment further... Cheers Charles On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Matthew Wilson wrote: > >In this message: > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-annotation/2002JulDec/0000.html > >it seemed that there was confusion over the correct way to indicate the >type of an annotation. > >Jim Ley thought that annotations should have an rdf:type of a:Annotation >and could optionally have an a:annotationType which described the >annotation type in more detail. > >But the protocol page indicates that there can be two different rdf:type's. > >Can anyone clarify this? > >Matthew Wilson > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 78 22 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France