Collection of questions

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

Re: Collection of questions

Re: Collection of questions

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

Re: Collection of questions

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.

Re: Collection of questions

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

Re: Collection of questions

Re: Collection of questions

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.

Re: Collection of questions

* Stephen Crawley <uqscrawl <at> uq.edu.au> [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

(eric <at> w3.org)
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.

Re: Collection of questions

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:22:56 +0200, Stephen Crawley <uqscrawl <at> uq.edu.au>  
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