Re: W3C Annotation Working Group?

Thanks, Doug!

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On Jan 8, 2014, at 16:18, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi, Dave–
> 
> Pardon my jumping in.
> 
> Which Activity it would be in is a bit up in the air, because this topic crosses many boundaries, but my guess is that it would be in the Digital Publishing Activity [1], which Ivan leads; both the Digital Publishing Activity and the Data Activity reside under the INK (Information and Knowledge) Domain [2], so they are fairly closely aligned.
> 
> In any case, there would be cross-disciplinary discussion, by necessity.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/INK/#d7e39
> [2] http://www.w3.org/INK/
> 
> Regards-
> -Doug
> 
> On 1/8/14 4:09 PM, David Wood wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>> 
>> Would this Annotation Working Group be created under the new Data
>> Activity or somewhere else?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> --
>> http://about.me/david_wood
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 14:52, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com
>> <mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> First, we hope that you've all had a safe and happy holidays!
>>> 
>>> Just before the break, a conversation was started in the W3C about
>>> possibly using annotation as an experimental means of commenting on
>>> specifications and drafts; this conversation also drew the attention
>>> on the more general need for Web users to annotate web pages at large.
>>> This practical requirement would tie in neatly with the ongoing work
>>> in the Digital Publishing Interest Group and in the IDPF
>>> (http://idpf.org/) to flesh out the use cases and application of the
>>> Open Annotation model in that field.
>>> 
>>> In order to take our annotation work to the next level, especially in
>>> the publishing domain but across the board in terms of annotation
>>> being a critical component of the Open Web Platform including
>>> browser-facing aspects, a number of people feel that creating an
>>> Annotations Working Group (WG) is both timely and important. This
>>> group would formalize and build on the Open Annotation specification
>>> and data model, and would also explore the browser side such as robust
>>> addressability, events, JavaScript APIs, and so on; the precise
>>> details would be worked out over the next several weeks in a proposed
>>> Annotations WG charter, within W3C's Information and Knowledge (INK)
>>> domain. The result would be a one or more official technical
>>> Recommendations (e.g., http://www.w3.org/TR/__OpenAnnotation/
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/OpenAnnotation/>) which can only be created by a
>>> WG, not by a Community Group.
>>> 
>>> Ivan Herman and Doug Schepers would help guide the group in their
>>> capacities at W3C, Ivan on the Semantic Web, Linked Data, and Digital
>>> Publishing side, and Doug on the Web application, browser, and
>>> developer outreach side.
>>> 
>>> What does this mean for the Community Group?  Firstly, all W3C members
>>> are warmly and strongly encouraged to join the Working Group!
>>> Secondly, since the WG will continue to conduct all its technical work
>>> in public, anyone who is not affiliated with a member institution can
>>> continue to be part of the discussion on the mailing list, and those
>>> who are able to actively contribute (e.g. editing, writing tests,
>>> managing issues, or maintaining support documents like use cases and
>>> requirements or developer documentation) will be considered for
>>> Invited Expert status.
>>> 
>>> If you just want to keep track of what's going on, then there's no
>>> need to do anything different. While the specification discussions
>>> would move to the Working Group, we would keep the Open Annotation
>>> Community Group alive as a platform to solicit broader feedback to
>>> issues arising in the WG, and to provide a discussion forum for
>>> existing community members. Paolo and I will take responsibility for
>>> acting as go-betweens for the CG and WG -- your input and support
>>> throughout the process so far has been extremely valuable and greatly
>>> appreciated.  We will make sure there's clear communication and close
>>> ties with this existing community.
>>> 
>>> Please let us know your thoughts on this idea!  While we think that a
>>> formal TR will carry significantly more weight than the current
>>> community draft, especially with larger industrial potential adopters,
>>> and that a broader scope of work can strengthen the market, we want to
>>> make sure you agree that the creation of a WG is the right thing to do
>>> at this stage. Do you think this is the right step? Would you be
>>> interested in participating in this proposed WG? Please give us your
>>> comments here!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Many thanks,
>>> 
>>> Rob and Paolo
>> 
> 
>