Re: about CritLink and annotation systems in general

At 06:37 PM 8/27/1999 +0000, Bjarni R. Einarsson wrote:
>I mentioned it partially as a point of reference which people were
>familiar with, and because it is the one I personally am most
>familiar with.

Ok. Good point. My page's listing covers most of the software which has
been announced here, at least a half-year back...

>You're correct though - I had assumed that people had agreed that
>"annotations" were simply focused links from one "source" to part
>of a web page.  Thinking back to what I've read here, this idea
>might be incompatible with the "dictionary" annotations, where
>people were essentially annotating individual words, not pages.
>
>So what *are* annotations?

Annotations: associate a word/point "anchor" on a web page with a set of
data supplied by a third party.

* glossary-style: the anchor is a phrase. 
* pointer-based: the anchor is the position within a specific document.
* document-based: the anchor is the document itself.

>Actually, a proxy solution doesn't have to have either problem.

Right. Let's use the term proffered by CritLink: "mediator".

>It's an idea so simple that a prototype could coded in a matter of
>days in Perl - assuming the protocols were finalized.

>I would like to point out that since Crit is
>already open source software with alot of functionality, that it
>would be perfect for adaptation as a reference implementation of
>any protocols which this list (or latter efforts) might come up
>with.

Cool. I have some more ideas for the development effort, but I'll work with
you on them off list.

Jon
Jon Garfunkel ............................... 
Software Engineer ................................. 
GTE Internetworking /Powered By BBN/ ......
Burlington, Mass ...........

Received on Friday, 27 August 1999 15:19:19 UTC