- From: Phil Cross <phil.cross@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:28:01 +0100
- To: www-annotation@w3.org
My name's Phil Cross and I'm working on an EU funded project called MedCERTAIN (www.medcertain.org). This is intended to investigate the labelling and possible trustmarking of health related Web sites. The Institute for Learning & Research Technology at Bristol University is responsible for providing the system that will be used for creating descriptive and/or evaluative metadata about such Health Sites. A lot of the software is coming from work on an RDF recommender system we developed under the DESIRE project <http://www.desire.org/>. Anyway ... my problem is this ... With the MedCERTAIN project, we have what you might call a number of different comment or annotation types: there is a set of metadata provided by the health site publisher themselves (more like a catalogue record); the latter set of metadata but now verified and with some evaluative metadata added by a third party; and as the third stage in the process, additional content evaluation metadata. In addition to these, we will have more basic comments attached to sites of the type: "I think this site is good | bad | smelly | etc" made, potentially, by users. The fact that the site has had a subject gateway or some other type of directory produce a catalogue record about it might also be seen as an annotation, which we could point to. I feel it is necessary to somehow differentiate between these different annotation types, so that it is easy to see what is available for a particular site, and separate annotations by type when presenting them to users; the question is, what is the best way of doing this? The basic structure for the RDF triples of comments or annotations, that we currently use, is to have an annotationID as a unique ID, which has properties such as 'annotates' (for the URI of the Web page), DC.Title, DC.subject, etc. I'm wondering if we should add an extra property called annotationType, and try and define some standard values for this. Or perhaps the 'annotates' property itself should have subclasses (e.g. 'comments' or 'evaluates', or should the annotationID be subclassed? Apologies to those not familiar with RDF terminology, but essentially what I needed to know is if anyone else has done work on defining some standard set of annotation 'types'. Any thoughts appreciated. Cheers, Phil -- --------------------------------- Phil Cross Senior Technical Researcher Institute for Learning and Research Technology University of Bristol 8 - 10 Berkeley Square Bristol, BS8 1HH Tel: +44 (0)117 928 7113 Fax: +44 (0)117 928 7112 E-mail: phil.cross@bristol.ac.uk URL: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/aboutus/staff?search=cmpac -----------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 12 October 2000 11:25:24 UTC