- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 10:32:55 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, <www-talk@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Joshua Allen wrote: > Your specific scenarios aren't too far from the Annotea work, and similar > efforts over on www-annotations@w3.org. What do you think stands in the > way of that work going mom'n'dad mainstream? But like I said, I think it is the server-centric model that limits adoption of *both* STS and Annotea, Now, when I say "server-centric", what I mean is that you need to be using the same discussion/annotea server as me if you want to see my annotations. This would be like saying that you have to dialup to my network if you want to read my web pages. Every annotation server becomes an island of metadata. This model only scales so far. And annotea begs the question, what do I gain by using RDF and URIs internally? Well, one of the things you can do in RDF is point to a different annotea server using a seeAlso annotation (unless there is some more clever RDF for doing this particularly). Another of the things that Annotea offers by virtue of being RDF is the ability to use RDF as the payload and get back a big lot of RDF that can all be processed with one kind of tool. This is potentially useful in an area like EARL, or annotating images. Chaals
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 10:32:57 UTC