- From: BigBlueHat via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 17:20:37 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
Annotation (to me at least) boils down to "the expectation of contextual display." My blog post about your blog post *may* be considered an annotation, or reply, or comment, or review, or whatever, but if I'm explicitly stating that it's an "annotation", the *expectation* is that it will be displayed alongside in some way--marginalia, etc. Here's what @timbl wrote for the `annotation` link relationship in 1993: > ANNOTATION > The information in B is additional to and subsidiary to that in A. > Annotation is used by one person to write the equivalent of "margin notes" or other criticism on another's document, for example. There's a bit more about newsgroups and their articles along with the link be "acyclic," but those uses fall outside of what we're defining at this point, I'd reckon. In RDF-land, it would be the expectation that the "description" contained in the triples not be considered canonical or authoritative, but as TimBL put it "additional to and subsidiary to." The author of `A` MAY consider the contents of `B` for eventual inclusion in a canonical graph, but by their expression as an annotation they stay "outside" until (and optionally) they are incorporated by the author of `A`--in a similar fashion to the copy-edit use case, etc. All that said, this may fall outside the scope of our charter, and probably be something just done by "interested parties" (me...at least...) at the IETF and/or IANA as "just" a link relationship. But, since we're doing annotation, I thought I'd bring it up. :wink: -- GitHub Notif of comment by BigBlueHat See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/101#issuecomment-154127653
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 17:20:49 UTC