- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:37:40 -0700
- To: Matteo Casu <mattecasu@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org
Hi Matteo, The Annotation Ontology has merged with Open Annotation Collaboration in the W3C community group: http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/ And Paolo is co-chair along with myself. We're *just* about to release the next version of the Community Group draft, so your interest comes at a great time. The NIF folk are also part of the Community Group, and we of course would encourage your participation as well! Many thanks, Rob Sanderson (Open Annotation Community Group co-chair) On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Matteo Casu <mattecasu@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > [my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities] > > does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more comfort wrt NiF. > > [0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/ > [1] http://www.annotationframework.org/ > [2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about >
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 20:38:07 UTC