- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:34:01 +0200
- To: "Stephen Crawley" <uqscrawl@uq.edu.au>, "Matthew Wilson" <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: "Urs Holzer" <urs@andonyar.com>, www-annotation@w3.org
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:22:56 +0200, Stephen Crawley <uqscrawl@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
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 11:34:54 UTC