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.comReceived on Thursday, 16 July 2009 11:34:54 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 July 2009 11:34:57 GMT