W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-annotation@w3.org > January to June 1999

Re: Annotation software comparisons

From: Ka-Ping Yee <ping@lfw.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jon Garfunkel <jgarfunk@bbn.com>
cc: www-annotation@w3.org, Critters Project List <critters@crit.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.990614090058.219G-100000@skuld.lfw.org>
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Jon Garfunkel wrote:
> I've started putting together a page highlighting some key differences in
> web annotation software architectures. Included are some existing,
> prototype, historical systems.
> It's only a draft now. I shall need to better organize the references. Feel
> free to make comments. I'd like to nail down some definitions for
> annotation system components:
> http://look.boston.ma.us/garf/webdev/annote/software.html

Hi.  I like your taxonomy.  It's nicely organized.  You may wish to
add a row to your table for Laurent Denoue's "YAWAS", mentioned on
this list a little while ago.

I have a couple of corrections to suggest for the CritLink entry.
The "Location" category for CritLink is currently just "tail", but
CritLink does support inline display of comments as well.  (Actually
it is not so cut and dry; see my annotation for more details.)
Also, what you refer to as "flavours" (cute term!) i've been calling
"link types".

For my comments on the draft, see:


> In the meantime, ThirdVoice is getting hammered by a newsworthy amount of
> Internet smarty-pants (see nototv.hypermart.net; stories in Wired News,
> Christian Science Monitor).

Yes, this is quite unfortunate.

> Unfortunately, no one is trying to get at the
> heart of the problem, which is the software's faulty architecture.

By that, do you mean the fact that it uses a root note server?


"Don't worry about people stealing an idea.  If it's original, you'll
have to jam it down their throats."
    -- Howard Aiken
Received on Monday, 14 June 1999 12:23:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:54 UTC