- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@home.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:59:46 -0500
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Cc: <swi-dev@egroups.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>, "Tapio Markula" <tapio1@gamma.nic.fi>
With xlink, topic maps, and RDF, we have plenty of possiblities for annotating documents, even third-party documents. Provided, that is, they are marked up in some useful way. xhtml isn't usually enough for that. Now if we want to annotate non-xml-marked-up documents, well, that's what groves are supposed to be good for, isn't it? (If you can somehow parse the non-markup documents, anyway) What we need are usable tools, preferably gui editor-like tools, to let us do these things. We've got the standards infrastructure, I think. I want to be able to take a document, highlight parts and add notes, comments (like, dare I say it, you can do in MS Word), and links to other documents, and have an xml document some else can work with and read too. Cheers, Tom P Sean B. Palmer wrote about mixing xhtml with annotation markup - ... > I believe that one of the best ways to transition into RDF, if not a > long-term deployment strategy for RDF, is to manage the information in > human-consumable form (XHTML) annotated with just enough info to extract the > RDF statements that the human info is intended to convey. [...] We all know > that we have to produce a human-readable version of the thing... why not use > that as the primary source? > ]]] - [2] > Or in other words, using XHTML [3] as a repository for data, but one that > can still be marked up with annotations, explanations, and summaries...aha! > The key concepts we have here is the following: Data can be stored somehow > in XHTML, and annotated with two different types of further data - > annotation intended to facilitate the machine transformation and extraction > of that data into machine (RDF?) form, and annotation to assist humans in > the interpretation of that data [4]. ... > If we added those simple tags etc. to a kind of XHTML slurry, then we would > have a lot more power to walk through the mire 'twixt documents and data. > But this is all an abstract conversation isn't it? Not really. Browsers > worldwide grok XHTML, and a few can use CSS to style other forms of XML. At > the moment, to cleanly extract data from XHTML, we have to pepper it (i.e. > annotate it) with hundreds of "classes" - class attributes [5] to imply our > meaning, for example as discussed in the semantic design principles [6], and > so instead we could just add a few custom based annotation and logic based > tags (like the ones above) to (e.g.) m12n, and create a transformable form > of XHTML, to bridge the gap.
Received on Saturday, 2 December 2000 12:57:41 UTC