- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:06:07 -0800
- To: public-openannotation@w3.org
I hope I'm not over-interpreting Ed's, Ivan's and Doug's points, but _I'd_ summarize the point as this: that for a standard to be widely adopted, it needs to be as easy to learn and implement as HTML and/or a WordPress or Drupal module. In fact, the latter two would be excellent tools if such is possible. I work with a number of small organizations, mostly archives, that not only do not have a programmer on staff, but do not have an "actual" web master. Instead, once a web site is set up (usually by a consultant) it is then maintained as needed by someone on staff who has learned just enough to keep things running. Yet these organizations have unique collections that could be of great value if linked. kc On 1/22/14, 10:30 AM, Edward Summers wrote: > On Jan 22, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: >> So, did you have any examples of what is useful or not useful from a tool perspective? Everything in the current data model is based on use cases and requirements, perhaps not requirements for everyone, but requirements none-the-less. > > Nope, I was just writing to agree that (more?) library support for working with OA annotations is an important idea. Just saying that some data is in JSON doesn’t mean it’s useful for a particular task. It just means you can call JSON.parse on it (yay) instead of having to install some esoteric RDF toolkit to work with it (boo). > > //Ed > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2014 20:06:37 UTC