Collection of questions

[Urs Holzer]

Hi together

I think we should make a collection of all questions we have to answer.
(Stephen Crawley has posted many questions on this list already.) I am
not shure how we should do that. Using the mailing list only is perhaps
not feasible.
The fanciest way would be to create a webpage with all the questions,
the answers can then be submitted using annotations.
Any other ideas?

Greetings
Urs

[Peter Crowther]

Wiki page?  That allows those who don't have annotation software to hand to submit answers.  Very Web 2.0, I know :-).

2009/7/2 Urs Holzer <[hidden email]>

Hi together

I think we should make a collection of all questions we have to answer.
(Stephen Crawley has posted many questions on this list already.) I am
not shure how we should do that. Using the mailing list only is perhaps
not feasible.
The fanciest way would be to create a webpage with all the questions,
the answers can then be submitted using annotations.
Any other ideas?

Greetings
Urs

[Urs Holzer]

Peter Crowther wrote:
> Wiki page?  That allows those who don't have annotation software to
> hand to submit answers.  Very Web 2.0, I know :-).

How about a semantic wiki in order to increase the version number a bit?
For example Kiwi:
http://www.kiwi-project.eu/

This would have the advantage that I can add an automatically generated
progress bar for the process of answering these questions to the
progress report on my website. ;-)

Is there someone on this mailinglist who knows about semtantic wikis? If
not, I will check whether Kiwi is suited for our puroses.

[Matthew Wilson-4]

Urs Holzer wrote:
> Hi together
>
> I think we should make a collection of all questions we have to answer.
> (Stephen Crawley has posted many questions on this list already.) I am
> not shure how we should do that. Using the mailing list only is perhaps
> not feasible.
> The fanciest way would be to create a webpage with all the questions,
> the answers can then be submitted using annotations.
> Any other ideas?

Is there still a W3C group on annotations who can answer the questions,
or update the specification or the server?

Matthew

[Stephen Crawley-2]

Matthew Wilson wrote:

> Urs Holzer wrote:
>> Hi together
>>
>> I think we should make a collection of all questions we have to
>> answer. (Stephen Crawley has posted many questions on this list
>> already.) I am not shure how we should do that. Using the mailing
>> list only is perhaps not feasible.
>> The fanciest way would be to create a webpage with all the questions,
>> the answers can then be submitted using annotations.
>> Any other ideas?
>
> Is there still a W3C group on annotations who can answer the
> questions, or update the specification or the server?
>
> Matthew
>

I think the answer is "no" to all of Matthew's questions ...
unfortunately.  The original Annotea group has wound up.  Ralph Swick is
still with W3C, but no longer interested in in Annotea. I had a short
conversation with Ivan Herman a few weeks back (face to face!) and the
impression I got was that he thinks that Annotea is out-dated.  Anyway,
he said that there was little chance that the W3C Semantic Web group
would reactivate this area.  Another possiblity is /Marja-Riitta
Koivunen/ and her "annotea.org" website.  However, the indications are
that she is semi-retired at the moment: there have been no updates to
the site since 2006 and she didn't respond to my email.

So I think the most practical solution would be to set up an informal
working group (independent of W3C) to come up with consensus answers and
document them.  A Wiki-based group sounds a reasonable approach.  (We
might be able to host an Annotea Wiki on "http://metadata.net" ... I
need to check out some issues.)

It remains to be seen if there are enough interested people with the
skills and dedication to come up with a decent Annotea specification.  
In my experience (MOF, XMI), writing a decent specification / standard
is hard work, and requires real dedication, discipline and willingness
to compromise.  So lets not get too ambitious just yet.

-- Steve

[Ian Davis-4]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Stephen Crawley <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think the answer is "no" to all of Matthew's questions ... unfortunately.  The original Annotea group has wound up.  Ralph Swick is still with W3C, but no longer interested in in Annotea. I had a short conversation with Ivan Herman a few weeks back (face to face!) and the impression I got was that he thinks that Annotea is out-dated.  Anyway, he said that there was little chance that the W3C Semantic Web group would reactivate this area.  Another possiblity is /Marja-Riitta Koivunen/ and her "annotea.org" website.  However, the indications are that she is semi-retired at the moment: there have been no updates to the site since 2006 and she didn't respond to my email.

So I think the most practical solution would be to set up an informal working group (independent of W3C) to come up with consensus answers and document them.  A Wiki-based group sounds a reasonable approach.  (We might be able to host an Annotea Wiki on "http://metadata.net" ... I need to check out some issues.)

If you need hosting of annotation data then you could use the Talis Platform (I am CTO at Talis). We have a scheme called Talis Connected Commons which gives anyone completely free hosting of public domain data up to 50,000,000 triples.  See http://www.talis.com/platform/cc/ for more details.

It would be good to see some annotea data being made more public.

Ian

[Urs Holzer]

Stephen Crawley wrote:
> So I think the most practical solution would be to set up an informal
> working group (independent of W3C) to come up with consensus answers
> and document them.  A Wiki-based group sounds a reasonable approach.
> (We might be able to host an Annotea Wiki on "http://metadata.net"
> ... I need to check out some issues.)

That would be great, Stephen.

> It remains to be seen if there are enough interested people with the
> skills and dedication to come up with a decent Annotea specification.
> In my experience (MOF, XMI), writing a decent specification /
> standard is hard work, and requires real dedication, discipline and
> willingness to compromise.  So lets not get too ambitious just yet.

Well, we can start and see what happens. On the other side, I don't like
the idea of some of us dedicating much time for nothing. If it is a
small amount of work to set up a Wiki, we should do that and use it to
check whether it is worth to start work on a specification.

[Eric Prud'hommeaux]

* Stephen Crawley <[hidden email]> [2009-07-03 09:22+1000]

> Matthew Wilson wrote:
>> Urs Holzer wrote:
>>> Hi together
>>>
>>> I think we should make a collection of all questions we have to  
>>> answer. (Stephen Crawley has posted many questions on this list  
>>> already.) I am not shure how we should do that. Using the mailing  
>>> list only is perhaps not feasible.
>>> The fanciest way would be to create a webpage with all the questions,
>>> the answers can then be submitted using annotations.
>>> Any other ideas?
>>
>> Is there still a W3C group on annotations who can answer the  
>> questions, or update the specification or the server?
>>
>> Matthew
>>
> I think the answer is "no" to all of Matthew's questions ...  
> unfortunately.  The original Annotea group has wound up.  Ralph Swick is  
> still with W3C, but no longer interested in in Annotea.

Actually, but Ralph and I are still interested, but we both have a lot
of other tasks which edge out Annotea. I am still monitoring
www-annotation and will try to help document the W3C implementation.

>                                                         I had a short  
> conversation with Ivan Herman a few weeks back (face to face!) and the  
> impression I got was that he thinks that Annotea is out-dated.  Anyway,  
> he said that there was little chance that the W3C Semantic Web group  
> would reactivate this area.  Another possiblity is /Marja-Riitta  
> Koivunen/ and her "annotea.org" website.  However, the indications are  
> that she is semi-retired at the moment: there have been no updates to  
> the site since 2006 and she didn't respond to my email.
>
> So I think the most practical solution would be to set up an informal  
> working group (independent of W3C) to come up with consensus answers and  
> document them.  A Wiki-based group sounds a reasonable approach.  (We  
> might be able to host an Annotea Wiki on "http://metadata.net" ... I  
> need to check out some issues.)

(longshot) if there are three W3C members interested in working on
this, you could start an XG, which would make it slightly easier for
Ralph and I to poke our noses in from time to time.

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/XGR/

> It remains to be seen if there are enough interested people with the  
> skills and dedication to come up with a decent Annotea specification.  
> In my experience (MOF, XMI), writing a decent specification / standard  
> is hard work, and requires real dedication, discipline and willingness  
> to compromise.  So lets not get too ambitious just yet.
>
> -- Steve
>

--
-eric

office: +1.617.258.5741 32-G528, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
mobile: [phone]

([hidden email])
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

[Charles McCathieNevile-2]

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:22:56 +0200, Stephen Crawley <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> So I think the most practical solution would be to set up an informal  
> working group (independent of W3C) to come up with consensus answers and  
> document them.  A Wiki-based group sounds a reasonable approach.  (We  
> might be able to host an Annotea Wiki on "http://metadata.net" ... I  
> need to check out some issues.)

An alternative would be to set up a W3C Incubator group. This is actually  
pretty simple, although you need 3 W3C members to support it (Opera could  
be one).

> It remains to be seen if there are enough interested people with the  
> skills and dedication to come up with a decent Annotea specification.  
> In my experience (MOF, XMI), writing a decent specification / standard  
> is hard work, and requires real dedication, discipline and willingness  
> to compromise.  So lets not get too ambitious just yet.

Yes, it is quite hard. But taking the original work and producing a  
cleaned-up version of the spec is probably feasible, and maybe even  
interesting.

cheers

Chaals

--
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

[Stephen Crawley-2]

Folks,

Partly as a service to people interested in Annotea, and partly as an
exercise in "dog fooding", I have turned my "comments" on the Annotea
protocol document into Annotations in our demo Danno server.  You can
view the annotated document using this URL:

   
http://maenad.itee.uq.edu.au/danno/repeater.svc?a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2001%2FAnnotea%2FUser%2FProtocol.html&e

To see the Annotation bodies, hover over the colored tags.  You can
click on a tag to "pin" the Annotation window, and thence create your
own Replies.

If you want to add a new Annotation, go to
http://maenad.itee.uq.edu.au/danno/dannotate.html and follow the
instructions.  Ditto for annotating other web pages.

-- Steve