- From: erik mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:46:45 +0200
- To: <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <00f701ca475c$fe259680$fa70c380$@mannens@ugent.be>
Dear all, Attached a mail from a colleague from another consortium asking if their UC for Fragments could be in-scope of our MF group. To be discussed! Sincere greetings, Erik From: Herbert van de Sompel [mailto:hvdsomp@gmail.com] Sent: donderdag 1 oktober 2009 20:19 To: erik.mannens@ugent.be Cc: hvdsomp@gmail.com; azaroth42@gmail.com Subject: open annotation / media fragments Dear Erik, As I mentioned while at WWW2009, I am involved in the Open Annotation Project (http://www.openannotation.org) that aims at creating specs and demonstrators of an interoperable annotation environment. The focus is on annotating scholarly resources, but the project takes a generic resource-centric perspective, and the requirements go beyond what is covered by the W3C's Annotea. It is our impression, BTW, that there's quite some people that feel like Annotea needs some serious revision anyhow in light of extensive evolutions since its conception. Annotea is definitely inspiring but it needs some clarification and extension at the least. Anyhow, as you can imagine, fragment addressing is an utterly important aspect in our annotation framework requirements, and hence we are delighted with the W3C Media Fragment effort. It is clear that our framework will be able to leverage the proposed "temporal", "spatial", "track", and "named" approaches. So, many thanks for your work on this! However, while discussing our annotating requirements, we came across a type of use case that we think is currently not covered by the Media Fragment proposal, and for which we will need a solution. Generally speaking, it is about cases where the resource fragment that needs to be annotated can not be specified by means of any of the proposed "inline fragment specification" approaches, but rather would need to be defined by means of a pointer to a special-purpose machine-readable document in which the fragment is specified. And the nature/content of that document would most likely depend on the type of resource one needs to specify a fragment for. An example would be an image resource - say - URI-IMG, where a third party (not the author) wants to externally specify an arbitrary (non-rectangular) region of the resource and subsequently wants to annotate it. In this case, one could create a separate resource (e.g. an SVG document) - say - URI-FRAG-DESC in which the to-be-annotated region would be described. And, then, following the # convention proposed in the media Fragment work, one could specify the region as: URI-IMG#description:URI-FRAG-DESC. In essence, the idea here is that of a by-reference instead of a by-value description of the fragment. The SVG example is just one instance of a rather general class of problems, we think. There's only that much one can put by-value in a fragment. Another example that comes to mind is annotation of slices/views of scientific datasets, regions in a 3D resource, and one could even think of addressing arbitrary regions of HTML using a by-ref description. I wonder whether this class of problems fits in the scope of the Media Fragment work, and if so, whether it is something that you would be willing to further discuss and maybe even take on board. It goes without saying that we would be very happy to provide help if that were deemed appropriate and/or welcome. I look forward to hearing from you. I hope all is well. Greetings Herbert -- Herbert Van de Sompel Digital Library Research & Prototyping Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 14:47:27 UTC