Re: W3C Annotation Working Group?

Dear Rob, all,

It is a great news! We (at the Budapest University of Technology and
Economics) are using OA as a key technology for annotating laws and
corporate regulations. We fully support the idea, and I think we can
contribute with use cases to move OA forward.

Best,
Akos


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Dan Whaley <dwhaley@hypothes.is> wrote:

> Rob,
>
> A giant leap for #openannotation.
>
> With much appreciation for everything you and Paolo and others have done
> to get us to this point, we’re very supportive of the move to a WG and are
> ready to help however best.  If I can also (perhaps presumptuously) speak
> from the perspective of the Annotator ecosystem--which is currently home to approximately
> 20 projects<https://docs.google.com/a/hypothes.is/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Am32b0H2bOCCdDhsUWxLYzkwTVFlbWJORWN1d3Jvcmc#gid=0> that
> have used it as a platform to build annotation services or that provide
> plugins for it, ours among them— i think there would be considerable
> interest and enthusiasm for this transition.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:52 AM, Robert Sanderson <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/)
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
/Akos