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 |
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 |
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. |
In reply to this post by Urs Holzer
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 |
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 > 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 |
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Stephen Crawley <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 |
In reply to this post by Stephen Crawley-2
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. |
In reply to this post by Stephen Crawley-2
* 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: +1.617.599.3509 ([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. |
In reply to this post by Stephen Crawley-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 |
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 |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |