Re: W3C Annotation Working Group?

Hi, Dave–

Pardon my jumping in.

Which Activity it would be in is a bit up in the air, because this topic 
crosses many boundaries, but my guess is that it would be in the Digital 
Publishing Activity [1], which Ivan leads; both the Digital Publishing 
Activity and the Data Activity reside under the INK (Information and 
Knowledge) Domain [2], so they are fairly closely aligned.

In any case, there would be cross-disciplinary discussion, by necessity.

[1] http://www.w3.org/INK/#d7e39
[2] http://www.w3.org/INK/

Regards-
-Doug

On 1/8/14 4:09 PM, David Wood wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Would this Annotation Working Group be created under the new Data
> Activity or somewhere else?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 14:52, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com
> <mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>> First, we hope that you've all had a safe and happy holidays!
>>
>> Just before the break, a conversation was started in the W3C about
>> possibly using annotation as an experimental means of commenting on
>> specifications and drafts; this conversation also drew the attention
>> on the more general need for Web users to annotate web pages at large.
>> This practical requirement would tie in neatly with the ongoing work
>> in the Digital Publishing Interest Group and in the IDPF
>> (http://idpf.org/) to flesh out the use cases and application of the
>> Open Annotation model in that field.
>>
>> In order to take our annotation work to the next level, especially in
>> the publishing domain but across the board in terms of annotation
>> being a critical component of the Open Web Platform including
>> browser-facing aspects, a number of people feel that creating an
>> Annotations Working Group (WG) is both timely and important. This
>> group would formalize and build on the Open Annotation specification
>> and data model, and would also explore the browser side such as robust
>> addressability, events, JavaScript APIs, and so on; the precise
>> details would be worked out over the next several weeks in a proposed
>> Annotations WG charter, within W3C's Information and Knowledge (INK)
>> domain. The result would be a one or more official technical
>> Recommendations (e.g., http://www.w3.org/TR/__OpenAnnotation/
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/OpenAnnotation/>) which can only be created by a
>> WG, not by a Community Group.
>>
>> Ivan Herman and Doug Schepers would help guide the group in their
>> capacities at W3C, Ivan on the Semantic Web, Linked Data, and Digital
>> Publishing side, and Doug on the Web application, browser, and
>> developer outreach side.
>>
>> What does this mean for the Community Group?  Firstly, all W3C members
>> are warmly and strongly encouraged to join the Working Group!
>> Secondly, since the WG will continue to conduct all its technical work
>> in public, anyone who is not affiliated with a member institution can
>> continue to be part of the discussion on the mailing list, and those
>> who are able to actively contribute (e.g. editing, writing tests,
>> managing issues, or maintaining support documents like use cases and
>> requirements or developer documentation) will be considered for
>> Invited Expert status.
>>
>> If you just want to keep track of what's going on, then there's no
>> need to do anything different. While the specification discussions
>> would move to the Working Group, we would keep the Open Annotation
>> Community Group alive as a platform to solicit broader feedback to
>> issues arising in the WG, and to provide a discussion forum for
>> existing community members. Paolo and I will take responsibility for
>> acting as go-betweens for the CG and WG -- your input and support
>> throughout the process so far has been extremely valuable and greatly
>> appreciated.  We will make sure there's clear communication and close
>> ties with this existing community.
>>
>> Please let us know your thoughts on this idea!  While we think that a
>> formal TR will carry significantly more weight than the current
>> community draft, especially with larger industrial potential adopters,
>> and that a broader scope of work can strengthen the market, we want to
>> make sure you agree that the creation of a WG is the right thing to do
>> at this stage. Do you think this is the right step? Would you be
>> interested in participating in this proposed WG? Please give us your
>> comments here!
>>
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Rob and Paolo
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 21:18:48 UTC