- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:47:17 +0000 (GMT)
- To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, <www-annotation@w3.org>
I think I'm following a path recently pursued by Jim, looking at how to post EARL to the annotest server. If I'm way behind and talking rubbish, please excuse me (I'll blame the wine)! It seems to me that the database issue could in principle be fixed up by simply declaring a new annotation type http://www.w3.org/2000/10/annotationType#earlAssertion whose body will be an EARL assertion. This has the drawback that it could get horribly verbose for multiple assertions, but I'd be happy to put that aside for the time being. The question then arises: what use are single assertions either to EARL or Annotea clients? Presumably Snufkin (being both) could be happy with them(??). Is there any reason why other Annotea clients shouldn't then also be pretty simple to program up to deal with this, given that all we're adding from your POV is a subject-predicate-object structure to the body? This looks too straightforward. What are the problems with it? [note crosspost] -- Nick Kew Site Valet - the mark of Quality on the Web. <URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 20:47:21 UTC