Nabble - w3.org - www-annotation

Annotated "Annotea protocol" document.

2009-11-08T23:30:36Z

Folks,

Partly as a service to people interested in Annotea, and partly as an
exercise in "dog fooding", I have turned my "comments" on the Annotea
protocol document into Annotations in our demo Danno server. You can
view the annotated document using this URL:

http://maenad.itee.uq.edu.au/danno/repeater.svc?a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2001%2FAnnotea%2FUser%2FProtocol.html&e

To see the Annotation bodies, hover over the colored tags. You can
click on a tag to "pin" the Annotation window, and thence create your
own Replies.

If you want to add a new Annotation, go to
http://maenad.itee.uq.edu.au/danno/dannotate.html and follow the
instructions. Ditto for annotating other web pages.

-- Steve

Re: Collection of questions

2009-07-16T04:34:01Z

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:22:56 +0200, Stephen Crawley <uqscrawl@...>
wrote:

> So I think the most practical solution would be to set up an informal
> working group (independent of W3C) to come up with consensus answers and
> document them. A Wiki-based group sounds a reasonable approach. (We
> might be able to host an Annotea Wiki on "http://metadata.net" ... I
> need to check out some issues.)

An alternative would be to set up a W3C Incubator group. This is actually
pretty simple, although you need 3 W3C members to support it (Opera could
be one).

> It remains to be seen if there are enough interested people with the
> skills and dedication to come up with a decent Annotea specification.
> In my experience (MOF, XMI), writing a decent specification / standard
> is hard work, and requires real dedication, discipline and willingness
> to compromise. So lets not get too ambitious just yet.

Yes, it is quite hard. But taking the original work and producing a
cleaned-up version of the spec is probably feasible, and maybe even
interesting.

cheers

Chaals

--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Re: Collection of questions

2009-07-07T12:23:23Z

* Stephen Crawley <uqscrawl@...> [2009-07-03 09:22+1000]

> Matthew Wilson wrote:
>> Urs Holzer wrote:
>>> Hi together
>>>
>>> I think we should make a collection of all questions we have to
>>> answer. (Stephen Crawley has posted many questions on this list
>>> already.) I am not shure how we should do that. Using the mailing
>>> list only is perhaps not feasible.
>>> The fanciest way would be to create a webpage with all the questions,
>>> the answers can then be submitted using annotations.
>>> Any other ideas?
>>
>> Is there still a W3C group on annotations who can answer the
>> questions, or update the specification or the server?
>>
>> Matthew
>>
> I think the answer is "no" to all of Matthew's questions ...
> unfortunately. The original Annotea group has wound up. Ralph Swick is
> still with W3C, but no longer interested in in Annotea.

Actually, but Ralph and I are still interested, but we both have a lot
of other tasks which edge out Annotea. I am still monitoring
www-annotation and will try to help document the W3C implementation.

> I had a short
> conversation with Ivan Herman a few weeks back (face to face!) and the
> impression I got was that he thinks that Annotea is out-dated. Anyway,
> he said that there was little chance that the W3C Semantic Web group
> would reactivate this area. Another possiblity is /Marja-Riitta
> Koivunen/ and her "annotea.org" website. However, the indications are
> that she is semi-retired at the moment: there have been no updates to
> the site since 2006 and she didn't respond to my email.
>
> So I think the most practical solution would be to set up an informal
> working group (independent of W3C) to come up with consensus answers and
> document them. A Wiki-based group sounds a reasonable approach. (We
> might be able to host an Annotea Wiki on "http://metadata.net" ... I
> need to check out some issues.)

(longshot) if there are three W3C members interested in working on
this, you could start an XG, which would make it slightly easier for
Ralph and I to poke our noses in from time to time.

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/XGR/

> It remains to be seen if there are enough interested people with the
> skills and dedication to come up with a decent Annotea specification.
> In my experience (MOF, XMI), writing a decent specification / standard
> is hard work, and requires real dedication, discipline and willingness
> to compromise. So lets not get too ambitious just yet.
>
> -- Steve
>

--
-eric

office: +1.617.258.5741 32-G528, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
mobile: +1.617.599.3509

(eric@...)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Re: Collection of questions

2009-07-06T04:25:45Z

Stephen Crawley wrote:
> So I think the most practical solution would be to set up an informal
> working group (independent of W3C) to come up with consensus answers
> and document them. A Wiki-based group sounds a reasonable approach.
> (We might be able to host an Annotea Wiki on "http://metadata.net"
> ... I need to check out some issues.)

That would be great, Stephen.

> It remains to be seen if there are enough interested people with the
> skills and dedication to come up with a decent Annotea specification.
> In my experience (MOF, XMI), writing a decent specification /
> standard is hard work, and requires real dedication, discipline and
> willingness to compromise. So lets not get too ambitious just yet.

Well, we can start and see what happens. On the other side, I don't like
the idea of some of us dedicating much time for nothing. If it is a
small amount of work to set up a Wiki, we should do that and use it to
check whether it is worth to start work on a specification.

Re: Collection of questions

2009-07-06T02:01:53Z

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Stephen Crawley <uqscrawl@...> wrote:

I think the answer is "no" to all of Matthew's questions ... unfortunately. The original Annotea group has wound up. Ralph Swick is still with W3C, but no longer interested in in Annotea. I had a short conversation with Ivan Herman a few weeks back (face to face!) and the impression I got was that he thinks that Annotea is out-dated. Anyway, he said that there was little chance that the W3C Semantic Web group would reactivate this area. Another possiblity is /Marja-Riitta Koivunen/ and her "annotea.org" website. However, the indications are that she is semi-retired at the moment: there have been no updates to the site since 2006 and she didn't respond to my email.

So I think the most practical solution would be to set up an informal working group (independent of W3C) to come up with consensus answers and document them. A Wiki-based group sounds a reasonable approach. (We might be able to host an Annotea Wiki on "http://metadata.net" ... I need to check out some issues.)

If you need hosting of annotation data then you could use the Talis Platform (I am CTO at Talis). We have a scheme called Talis Connected Commons which gives anyone completely free hosting of public domain data up to 50,000,000 triples. See http://www.talis.com/platform/cc/ for more details.

It would be good to see some annotea data being made more public.

Ian

Re: Collection of questions

2009-07-02T16:22:56Z

Matthew Wilson wrote:

> Urs Holzer wrote:
>> Hi together
>>
>> I think we should make a collection of all questions we have to
>> answer. (Stephen Crawley has posted many questions on this list
>> already.) I am not shure how we should do that. Using the mailing
>> list only is perhaps not feasible.
>> The fanciest way would be to create a webpage with all the questions,
>> the answers can then be submitted using annotations.
>> Any other ideas?
>
> Is there still a W3C group on annotations who can answer the
> questions, or update the specification or the server?
>
> Matthew
>

I think the answer is "no" to all of Matthew's questions ...
unfortunately. The original Annotea group has wound up. Ralph Swick is
still with W3C, but no longer interested in in Annotea. I had a short
conversation with Ivan Herman a few weeks back (face to face!) and the
impression I got was that he thinks that Annotea is out-dated. Anyway,
he said that there was little chance that the W3C Semantic Web group
would reactivate this area. Another possiblity is /Marja-Riitta
Koivunen/ and her "annotea.org" website. However, the indications are
that she is semi-retired at the moment: there have been no updates to
the site since 2006 and she didn't respond to my email.

So I think the most practical solution would be to set up an informal
working group (independent of W3C) to come up with consensus answers and
document them. A Wiki-based group sounds a reasonable approach. (We
might be able to host an Annotea Wiki on "http://metadata.net" ... I
need to check out some issues.)

It remains to be seen if there are enough interested people with the
skills and dedication to come up with a decent Annotea specification.
In my experience (MOF, XMI), writing a decent specification / standard
is hard work, and requires real dedication, discipline and willingness
to compromise. So lets not get too ambitious just yet.

-- Steve

Re: Collection of questions

2009-07-02T09:15:16Z

Urs Holzer wrote:
> Hi together
>
> I think we should make a collection of all questions we have to answer.
> (Stephen Crawley has posted many questions on this list already.) I am
> not shure how we should do that. Using the mailing list only is perhaps
> not feasible.
> The fanciest way would be to create a webpage with all the questions,
> the answers can then be submitted using annotations.
> Any other ideas?

Is there still a W3C group on annotations who can answer the questions,
or update the specification or the server?

Matthew

Re: Collection of questions

2009-07-02T09:14:25Z

Peter Crowther wrote:
> Wiki page? That allows those who don't have annotation software to
> hand to submit answers. Very Web 2.0, I know :-).

How about a semantic wiki in order to increase the version number a bit?
For example Kiwi:
http://www.kiwi-project.eu/

This would have the advantage that I can add an automatically generated
progress bar for the process of answering these questions to the
progress report on my website. ;-)

Is there someone on this mailinglist who knows about semtantic wikis? If
not, I will check whether Kiwi is suited for our puroses.

Re: Collection of questions

2009-07-02T04:26:05Z

Wiki page? That allows those who don't have annotation software to hand to submit answers. Very Web 2.0, I know :-).

2009/7/2 Urs Holzer <urs@...>

Hi together

I think we should make a collection of all questions we have to answer.
(Stephen Crawley has posted many questions on this list already.) I am
not shure how we should do that. Using the mailing list only is perhaps
not feasible.
The fanciest way would be to create a webpage with all the questions,
the answers can then be submitted using annotations.
Any other ideas?

Greetings
Urs

Collection of questions

2009-07-02T02:13:38Z

Hi together

I think we should make a collection of all questions we have to answer.
(Stephen Crawley has posted many questions on this list already.) I am
not shure how we should do that. Using the mailing list only is perhaps
not feasible.
The fanciest way would be to create a webpage with all the questions,
the answers can then be submitted using annotations.
Any other ideas?

Greetings
Urs

Re: about Annotea Server specifications.

2009-06-29T16:52:09Z

Seno Akira wrote:
> Hello,www-annotation members.
> I'm looking for strict Annotea server specification.
> As trying to implement annotea server,I read "Annotea Prtocols",but I
> cannot figure out whole of requests sent by client and replies shoud
> be returned for them ,e.g. server should interpret requests about
> bookmark ,some query languages like RDQL or SPARQL ,etc.
>
>
You are correct. The "Annotea Protocols" document is not a proper
specification. If you look through the recent postings on this list,
you will see a number of messages from me that point out "holes" in the
document; i.e. points where the document does not adequately describe
the required behaviour of an Annotea server (and client). Those
messages are based on what I learned in implementing "Danno".

What Urs said is also true. The document is "out of date" in the sense
that we want to use Annotea to do far more than the "Annotea Protocols"
document envisages. Support for the bookmarks schemas, SPARQL queries
and so on are some of the examples.
> I think that my implementation should be able to support all features
> which supported by the server on http://annotest.w3.org/annotations.
> But, I could not find documents which tell about strict server
> specifications on annotea still now.
>
There are none.
> I want to know strict specifications or server implementation policy
> about annotest.w3.org/annotations.
>
Again, there are none. Actually, it is worse than that. The "annotest"
server is known to NOT correctly implement the protocols as described in
the Annotea Protocols document. IIRC, annotest requires an incorrect
query name to fetch replies to an annotation, and it uses the DC 1.0
namespace rather than DC1.1 which is used in the examples in the Annotea
Protocols document. (And there may be other issues too.)
> Please tell or suggest me about annotea server specifications.
>
The best I can suggest is to read the Annotea Pro carefully, read my
messages (and others) on this list, and try to figure out something that
works for your particular use-case. Also, if you care about
interoperability with other people's clients and/or servers, test your
clients against their servers and vice-versa. I'd pay most attention to
client/server implementations that people are actively working on. For
example Annozilla and Danno/Dannotate. Finally, you can always ask
questions on this mailing list :-)

-- Steve

Re: about Annotea Server specifications.

2009-06-27T12:50:13Z

Hi

Seno Akira wrote:
> I'm looking for strict Annotea server specification.

Unfortunately, I guess there is no such thing.

> [...]

> I think that my implementation should be able to support all features
> which supported by the server on http://annotest.w3.org/annotations.
> But, I could not find documents which tell about strict server
> specifications on annotea still now.

In my opinion this server is outdated in some aspects.

> I want to know strict specifications or server implementation policy
> about annotest.w3.org/annotations.
> Please tell or suggest me about annotea server specifications.

Would you be willing to help in creating such a specification? If I
remember correctly someone else asked a lot of questions on this list,
but this is some time ago. These questions never got answered. I think
the first thing we should do is to try to answer them. I will look for
them and present my personal answers if I find time to do that.

Greetings
Urs

about Annotea Server specifications.

2009-06-24T06:52:13Z

Hello,www-annotation members.
I'm looking for strict Annotea server specification.
As trying to implement annotea server,I read "Annotea Prtocols",but I
cannot figure out whole of requests sent by client and replies shoud
be returned for them ,e.g. server should interpret requests about
bookmark ,some query languages like RDQL or SPARQL ,etc.

I think that my implementation should be able to support all features
which supported by the server on http://annotest.w3.org/annotations.
But, I could not find documents which tell about strict server
specifications on annotea still now.

I want to know strict specifications or server implementation policy
about annotest.w3.org/annotations.
Please tell or suggest me about annotea server specifications.

thank you.

Akira SENO

DEADLINE EXTENSION AND INVITED TALK (Ed Hovy): K-CAP 2009 Workshop on Semantic Authoring, Annotation and Knowledge Markup (SAAKM 2009)

2009-06-16T12:51:15Z

[Apologies for cross posting]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
CALL FOR PAPERS / DEADLINE EXTENSION / INVITED TALK ANNOUNCEMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Semantic Authoring, Annotation and Knowledge Markup (SAAKM 2009)
http://saakm2009.semanticauthoring.org/
1 September 2009

co-located with the 5th International Conference on
Knowledge Capture (K-Cap 2009)
Redondo Beach, California, USA, 1-4 September 2009
http://kcap09.stanford.edu/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

*** DEADLINE EXTENSION ***

* Submission deadline (extended): June 25, 2009
* Notification of acceptance: July 24, 2009
* Camera-ready submission: August 5, 2009
* Workshop date: September 1, 2009

----------------------------------------------------------------------

*** INVITED TALK ***

"Putting Interpretive Semantics into Web Content"
Eduard Hovy
Information Sciences Institute
University of Southern California
http://www.isi.edu/~hovy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Capturing knowledge by using markup techniques and by supporting semantic
annotations is a major technique for creating metadata. It is beneficial
in a wide range of content-oriented intelligent applications.
One important application for instance is the Semantic Web. The research
about the WWW currently strives to augment syntactic information
already present in the Web by semantic metadata in order to achieve a
Semantic Web that human and software agents can understand. Here, one
of the most urgent challenges now is a knowledge-capturing problem,
i.e., how one may turn existing syntactic resources into knowledge
structures. A solution is to markup web documents in order to create
metadata on the web or to author new documents in a way that they
contain markup directly.

Another application is the indexing and searching of multimedia (and
multilingual) data. It is difficult to completely process the content of
multimedia data, even with technologies based on natural language
processing, image processing, machine vision and speech recognition.
Therefore, semantic annotation is one of the promising methodologies
to define semantic structures on the content.

WORKSHOP GOALS

This workshop aims at bringing together members of different overlapping
communities that share the interest on semantic authoring and annotation
for developing methods and tools:
* Semantic Web researchers who use semantic authoring and annotation
to enrich the web with distributed relational meta-data in order to
enable a machine-readable web.
* Members of the human language technology community, developing
information extraction systems for the generation of meta-data
* People from the multimedia content domain, indexing and searching
of multimedia (and multilingual) data.
* Researchers who address innovative topics and applications by semantic
annotation (semantic annotation of databases, annotation of
web/grid services, semantic hypertext, etc.)
This will give an opportunity to push further the discussion upon the
potential of semantic annotation across these communities.

TOPICS OF INTEREST

Potential topics include but are not limited to:
* semantic authoring and publishing
* document engineering
* deriving semantics from document structure and content
* ontology-based authoring and markup
* knowledge markup in the Semantic Web
* standards for supporting knowledge markup, e.g.,
RDFa, microformats, GRDDL
* using semantic annotations to define knowledge
* integrated software architecture based on semantic annotation
* multimedia annotation (e.g., by using MPEG-7)
* annotation of software components
* linguistic aspects of semantic annotation
* capturing knowledge through Information Extraction and NLP
* text mining for creating knowledge markup
* mining semantic information from blogs, forums or news sources.
* collaborative, shared tagging and annotation
* evaluation of annotation frameworks
* semantic annotation in Semantic Wikis
* semantic annotation of multilingual web sources
* deriving formal semantics from (flat or hierarchical) tagging systems
* vocabularies and ontologies for semantic authoring and annotation
* tools for supporting knowledge markup, semantic annotation,
semantic authoring, ...

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

* Siegfried Handschuh, DERI Galway, Ireland
* Michael Sintek, DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Germany
* Nigel Collier, NII, Japan
* Anita de Waard, University of Utrecht, Netherlands

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

We invite submissions of full technical papers and short position papers.
Authors of accepted technical and position papers will be invited to
present their papers in the workshop

Format requirements for submissions of technical papers are:
* Full papers - should not exceed 8 pages in length (including references)
* Position papers - are expected up to 3 pages.

Papers must be submitted as PDF and strictly adhere to ACM
proceedings format:
http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates

For submissions, the authors are expected to use the following link:
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=saakm09

4 days left - K-CAP 2009 Workshop on Semantic Authoring, Annotation and Knowledge Markup (SAAKM 2009)

2009-06-11T06:54:29Z

[Apologies for cross posting]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
CALL FOR PAPERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Semantic Authoring, Annotation and Knowledge Markup (SAAKM 2009)
http://saakm2009.semanticauthoring.org/
1 September 2009

co-located with the 5th International Conference on
Knowledge Capture (K-Cap 2009)
Redondo Beach, California, USA, 1-4 September 2009
http://kcap09.stanford.edu/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Capturing knowledge by using markup techniques and by supporting semantic
annotations is a major technique for creating metadata. It is beneficial
in a wide range of content-oriented intelligent applications.
One important application for instance is the Semantic Web. The research
about the WWW currently strives to augment syntactic information
already present in the Web by semantic metadata in order to achieve a
Semantic Web that human and software agents can understand. Here, one
of the most urgent challenges now is a knowledge-capturing problem,
i.e., how one may turn existing syntactic resources into knowledge
structures. A solution is to markup web documents in order to create
metadata on the web or to author new documents in a way that they
contain markup directly.

Another application is the indexing and searching of multimedia (and
multilingual) data. It is difficult to completely process the content of
multimedia data, even with technologies based on natural language
processing, image processing, machine vision and speech recognition.
Therefore, semantic annotation is one of the promising methodologies
to define semantic structures on the content.

WORKSHOP GOALS

This workshop aims at bringing together members of different overlapping
communities that share the interest on semantic authoring and annotation
for developing methods and tools:
* Semantic Web researchers who use semantic authoring and annotation
to enrich the web with distributed relational meta-data in order to
enable a machine-readable web.
* Members of the human language technology community, developing
information extraction systems for the generation of meta-data
* People from the multimedia content domain, indexing and searching
of multimedia (and multilingual) data.
* Researchers who address innovative topics and applications by semantic
annotation (semantic annotation of databases, annotation of
web/grid services, semantic hypertext, etc.)
This will give an opportunity to push further the discussion upon the
potential of semantic annotation across these communities.

TOPICS OF INTEREST

Potential topics include but are not limited to:
* semantic authoring and publishing
* document engineering
* deriving semantics from document structure and content
* ontology-based authoring and markup
* knowledge markup in the Semantic Web
* standards for supporting knowledge markup, e.g., RDFa, microformats, GRDDL
* using semantic annotations to define knowledge
* integrated software architecture based on semantic annotation
* multimedia annotation (e.g., by using MPEG-7)
* annotation of software components
* linguistic aspects of semantic annotation
* capturing knowledge through Information Extraction and NLP
* text mining for creating knowledge markup
* mining semantic information from blogs, forums or news sources.
* collaborative, shared tagging and annotation
* evaluation of annotation frameworks
* semantic annotation in Semantic Wikis
* semantic annotation of multilingual web sources
* deriving formal semantics from (flat or hierarchical) tagging systems
* vocabularies and ontologies for semantic authoring and annotation
* tools for supporting knowledge markup, semantic annotation,
semantic authoring, ...

IMPORTANT DATES

Submission deadline: June 15, 2009
Notification of acceptance: July 15, 2009
Camera-ready paper submission: July 27, 2009
Workshop date: September 1, 2009

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

* Siegfried Handschuh, DERI Galway, Ireland
* Michael Sintek, DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Germany
* Nigel Collier, NII, Japan
* Anita de Waard, University of Utrecht, Netherlands

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

We invite submissions of full technical papers and short position papers.
Authors of accepted technical and position papers will be invited to
present their papers in the workshop

Format requirements for submissions of technical papers are:
* Full papers - should not exceed 8 pages in length (including references)
* Position papers - are expected up to 3 pages.

Papers must be submitted as PDF and strictly adhere to ACM proceedings
format
(http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates).
For submissions, the authors are expected to use the following link:
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=saakm09

Re: Annotea futures? Annotation standards in 2009...

2009-05-24T18:50:39Z

Hi Folks,

The Jane Hunter's eResearch group at the University of Queensland has
done a lot annotation software in the past year:

* Our 'Danno' server is now in beta. It is a full implementation of
the Annotea spec in Java, complete with support for OAI-PMH harvesting
and (as of a week ago) support for delivering Annotea query responses
as RSS feeds. We have just updated the "demo" page at
http://maenad.itee.uq.edu.au/danno/index.thml to show off the latest
features. Danno is compatible with Annozilla ... modulo that a Danno is
configured by default to use DC 1.1 URIs (following the spec) rather
than DC 1.0 URIs (following annotest).

* Our 'Dannotate' client prototype has reached a state where we are
happy for people to take a look at it. Unlike Annozilla, Dannotate is
implemented to run as untrusted code; i.e. not as a plugin/extension.
This means that >>in theory<< we should be able to run on any browser.
In practice, it currently runs on Firefox, Safari, Google Chrome, Opera
and ... (wait for it) ... Internet Explorer 8 !!! You can see the
latest version of Dannotate at
http://maenad.itee.uq.edu.au/dias-b/dannotate.html which explains some
of the technology used.

* We have also updated our 'MDE' and 'MSF' to handle RDF metadata
records and schemas respectively, and we have implemented an adapter
that allows MDE to load, edit, validate and store annotations to a
generic Annotea server. A preliminary demo of MDE <-> Danno integration
can be seen at http://maenad.itee.uq.edu.au:28080/mde/index.html We have
more work to do on a number of fronts before this is work is ready for
prime time, but an MDE / MSF based client has the promise of supporting
custom annotation schemas and deep validation of annotation content.

* OAI-ORE objects relate multiple resources from disparate databases
within a single compound object. We have implemented a Firefox
extension, LORE (Literature Object Re-use and Exchange) that will enable
users to create / author OAI-ORE compliant Compound Objects, publish
them in an Annotea service, edit them and search and retrieve them.

This work is being performed as part of the DIAS-B and Aus-e-lit
projects, and is currently being used in (non-public) prototypes of
future versions of the Atlas of Living Australia (
http://www.ala.org.au/ ) and the AUSLIT ( http://www.austlit.edu.au/ )
websites. Much of the software is already available from SourceForge at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/metadata-net and the rest will be
released there in the future.

An overview of our part of the DIAS-B project may be found at
http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~eresearch/projects/diasb/ . An overview of
the Aus-e-lit project may be found at
http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~eresearch/projects/aus-e-lit/ .

-- Steve Crawley

Dan Brickley wrote:

> (I'm cc:'ing 3 lists, rather warily; if the thread gets long, please
> consider trimming it to just use semantic-web@...)
>
> Hi all
>
> I'm involved in helping advise a new not-for-profit project that is
> close in approach to the old Annotea project, looking at annotations
> within pieces of Web content, and their cross-linking, threading for
> discussion etc. It's now 2009, over ten years since the original
> Annotea designs. The Web has changed a lot since then, but the need to
> annotate it doesn't seem to have gone away.
>
> See http://annotea.org/
> http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/User/Tutorial/quicktutorial and nearby
> for an overview of Annotea.
>
> Since then Web 2.0 has happened, and now many of the original themes
> of Annotea are part of the mainstream Web developer perspective. And
> yet ... looking at the comments to this 2007 techcrunch survey -
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/10/5-ways-to-mark-up-the-web/ - I
> see project after project, startup after startup, exploring this space
> without any great emphasis on data exchange standards. I guess many of
> them have APIs, probably a lot of them use RSS or Atom feeds. But we
> certainly haven't yet to the place imagined by Annotea: an annotation
> layer for the Web that allows comments, scribbles, reviews,
> discussions to be freely interlinked and overlaid using open standard
> formats and protocols.
>
> So I'm mailing the relevant (and pretty quiet) lists but cc:'ing
> semantic-web@... too to ask where folk thing this stuff is heading.
>
> When is an annotation an annotation, versus a page that happens to be
> a review, or happens to have as it's primary topic another page? For
> annotations at the page level, it might be that mainstream RDF work
> (linked data etc) has fulfilled some of the early promise of Annotea.
>
> But for the "annotating parts of a page" scenario that lies at the
> heart of many people's notion of annotations, there doesn't seem to be
> much happening in terms of practical and widely adopted standards.
> Lots of startups, experiments etc but they all seem to be islands. And
> since annotation systems are only really interesting when you have
> enough annotations to get decent coverage, this seems a pity.
>
> Thoughts? Am I missing some developments? What would Annotea look like
> if rebuilt for the Web of 2009? If it's in RDF, the query part would
> just use SPARQL, and topic classification would be SKOS. What else? Is
> there implementation experience from Annotea adopters and implementors
> gathered somewhere? Is there consensus for example on the best bits of
> information to keep if you want a robust reference to a piece of a
> potentially evolving page? How well do modern Web design habits (CSS,
> Ajax etc) interact with the overlay of 3rd party annotations? Is
> everyone using Firefox addons, javascript bookmarklets and Web proxies
> or is there some hope for a cross-browser approach on the horizon?
>
> thanks for any suggestions, thoughts, links etc.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>

Re: Annotea futures? Annotation standards in 2009...

2009-05-23T01:28:51Z

Dan Brickley wrote:

> On 22/5/09 18:24, Matthew Wilson wrote:
>> Dan Brickley wrote:
>>> (I'm cc:'ing 3 lists, rather warily; if the thread gets long, please
>>> consider trimming it to just use semantic-web@...)
>>>
>>> Thoughts? Am I missing some developments? What would Annotea look like
>>> if rebuilt for the Web of 2009? If it's in RDF, the query part would
>>> just use SPARQL, and topic classification would be SKOS.
>>
>> IMO the use of RDF seems to add a significant "complexity tax" on
>> implementations.
>
> Worth noting, and going into the practical details. Were you working
> solely with the Mozilla RDF APIs? XUL Templates etc? Or other more
> modern RDF libraries?

Mozilla APIs. But I also have bad memories of debugging responses from
the server (and trying to read the RDF Schema spec). As a non-expert, I
see RDF in the same category as XML Schema - trying to do much and
failing to "make the easy things easy", at least in the context of
annotations.

>> > What else? Is
>>> there implementation experience from Annotea adopters and implementors
>>> gathered somewhere? Is there consensus for example on the best bits of
>>> information to keep if you want a robust reference to a piece of a
>>> potentially evolving page? How well do modern Web design habits (CSS,
>>> Ajax etc) interact with the overlay of 3rd party annotations? Is
>>> everyone using Firefox addons, javascript bookmarklets and Web proxies
>>> or is there some hope for a cross-browser approach on the horizon?
>>
>> As an implementer, it seems to me that XPointer is not a great solution
>> for determining a selection of a web page. Theoretically it's only
>> specified for use with XML and not with HTML. Annotea glosses over this
>> problem, but there are real compatibility questions which I haven't seen
>> answered definitively (for example, if you have an 'implied' element not
>> present in the markup like "tbody", is it present in a constructed
>> XPointer)?
>
> Yup. This might be worth taking up with the HTML5 and WHATWG folks,
> since they're trying to write a spec that has a recovery model for ugly
> messy markup.
>
>> > How well do modern Web design habits (CSS,
>> > Ajax etc) interact with the overlay of 3rd party annotations?
>>
>> Arguably Annozilla doesn't even work well with less modern Web design
>> (the hacks it performs in order to display icons in the document are
>> pretty horrible), but it doesn't seem to have caused many problems in
>> practice - or at least I haven't had many reported to me.
>
> If there aren't many problems, in what sense does it not perform well?
> (internal Engineering uglyness, or problems that will affect users?)

Annozilla makes internal changes to the DOM so that it can add icons and
highlighting to the document, creating spans and images. It's easy to
imagine stylesheets or scripts breaking as a result. (I know Mozilla has
XBL but it doesn't quite seem to fit my needs here, at least last time I
checked.)

>> My guess is that the use of Annozilla is pretty limited and that it
>> isn't getting
>> any widespread use on any pages with significant Ajax usage. It's
>> obviously trivial to create an Ajaxy page which would expose the
>> limitations of the schema, and you would imagine that real-life usage
>> would have the same difficulties.
>
> Yep. Perhaps the pages that are problematic that way might also be
> problematic in terms of assessibility, and Mobile Web -readyness too?
> Which would at least give authors other motivations to fix their markup,
> apart from annotate-ability.

This seems a bit optimistic.

Matthew

RE: Annotea futures? Annotation standards in 2009...

2009-05-22T10:54:43Z

Francois,

could you add http://yawas.keeness.net to this list?

Laurent.

From: www-annotation-request@... [mailto:www-annotation-request@...] On Behalf Of François Dongier
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 9:14 AM
To: Dan Brickley
Cc: www-annotation@...; public-annotea-dev@...; marja@...; Semantic Web; Eric Prud'hommeaux; jose@...; Ralph R. Swick
Subject: Re: Annotea futures? Annotation standards in 2009...

Here's a list of annotation and note-taking tools (mainly web 2.0?) that you could check: http://digitalresearchtools.pbworks.com/Annotation+and+Notetaking+Tools

Re: Annotea futures? Annotation standards in 2009...

2009-05-22T09:35:44Z

On 22/5/09 18:24, Matthew Wilson wrote:

> Dan Brickley wrote:
>> (I'm cc:'ing 3 lists, rather warily; if the thread gets long, please
>> consider trimming it to just use semantic-web@...)
>>
>> Thoughts? Am I missing some developments? What would Annotea look like
>> if rebuilt for the Web of 2009? If it's in RDF, the query part would
>> just use SPARQL, and topic classification would be SKOS.
>
> IMO the use of RDF seems to add a significant "complexity tax" on
> implementations.

Worth noting, and going into the practical details. Were you working
solely with the Mozilla RDF APIs? XUL Templates etc? Or other more
modern RDF libraries?

> > What else? Is
>> there implementation experience from Annotea adopters and implementors
>> gathered somewhere? Is there consensus for example on the best bits of
>> information to keep if you want a robust reference to a piece of a
>> potentially evolving page? How well do modern Web design habits (CSS,
>> Ajax etc) interact with the overlay of 3rd party annotations? Is
>> everyone using Firefox addons, javascript bookmarklets and Web proxies
>> or is there some hope for a cross-browser approach on the horizon?
>
> As an implementer, it seems to me that XPointer is not a great solution
> for determining a selection of a web page. Theoretically it's only
> specified for use with XML and not with HTML. Annotea glosses over this
> problem, but there are real compatibility questions which I haven't seen
> answered definitively (for example, if you have an 'implied' element not
> present in the markup like "tbody", is it present in a constructed
> XPointer)?

Yup. This might be worth taking up with the HTML5 and WHATWG folks,
since they're trying to write a spec that has a recovery model for ugly
messy markup.

> > How well do modern Web design habits (CSS,
> > Ajax etc) interact with the overlay of 3rd party annotations?
>
> Arguably Annozilla doesn't even work well with less modern Web design
> (the hacks it performs in order to display icons in the document are
> pretty horrible), but it doesn't seem to have caused many problems in
> practice - or at least I haven't had many reported to me.

If there aren't many problems, in what sense does it not perform well?
(internal Engineering uglyness, or problems that will affect users?)

> My guess is that the use of Annozilla is pretty limited and that it isn't getting
> any widespread use on any pages with significant Ajax usage. It's
> obviously trivial to create an Ajaxy page which would expose the
> limitations of the schema, and you would imagine that real-life usage
> would have the same difficulties.

Yep. Perhaps the pages that are problematic that way might also be
problematic in terms of assessibility, and Mobile Web -readyness too?
Which would at least give authors other motivations to fix their markup,
apart from annotate-ability.

cheers,

Dan

Re: Annotea futures? Annotation standards in 2009...

2009-05-22T09:24:02Z

Dan Brickley wrote:
> (I'm cc:'ing 3 lists, rather warily; if the thread gets long, please
> consider trimming it to just use semantic-web@...)
>
> Hi all
>

> Thoughts? Am I missing some developments? What would Annotea look like
> if rebuilt for the Web of 2009? If it's in RDF, the query part would
> just use SPARQL, and topic classification would be SKOS.

IMO the use of RDF seems to add a significant "complexity tax" on
implementations.

> What else? Is
> there implementation experience from Annotea adopters and implementors
> gathered somewhere? Is there consensus for example on the best bits of
> information to keep if you want a robust reference to a piece of a
> potentially evolving page? How well do modern Web design habits (CSS,
> Ajax etc) interact with the overlay of 3rd party annotations? Is
> everyone using Firefox addons, javascript bookmarklets and Web proxies
> or is there some hope for a cross-browser approach on the horizon?

As an implementer, it seems to me that XPointer is not a great solution
for determining a selection of a web page. Theoretically it's only
specified for use with XML and not with HTML. Annotea glosses over this
problem, but there are real compatibility questions which I haven't seen
answered definitively (for example, if you have an 'implied' element not
present in the markup like "tbody", is it present in a constructed
XPointer)?

> How well do modern Web design habits (CSS,
> Ajax etc) interact with the overlay of 3rd party annotations?

Arguably Annozilla doesn't even work well with less modern Web design
(the hacks it performs in order to display icons in the document are
pretty horrible), but it doesn't seem to have caused many problems in
practice - or at least I haven't had many reported to me. My guess is
that the use of Annozilla is pretty limited and that it isn't getting
any widespread use on any pages with significant Ajax usage. It's
obviously trivial to create an Ajaxy page which would expose the
limitations of the schema, and you would imagine that real-life usage
would have the same difficulties.

Matthew

Re: Annotea futures? Annotation standards in 2009...

2009-05-22T09:13:35Z

Here's a list of annotation and note-taking tools (mainly web 2.0?) that you could check: http://digitalresearchtools.pbworks.com/Annotation+and+Notetaking+Tools

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@...> wrote:

(I'm cc:'ing 3 lists, rather warily; if the thread gets long, please consider trimming it to just use semantic-web@...)

Hi all

I'm involved in helping advise a new not-for-profit project that is close in approach to the old Annotea project, looking at annotations within pieces of Web content, and their cross-linking, threading for discussion etc. It's now 2009, over ten years since the original Annotea designs. The Web has changed a lot since then, but the need to annotate it doesn't seem to have gone away.

See http://annotea.org/ http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/User/Tutorial/quicktutorial and nearby for an overview of Annotea.

Since then Web 2.0 has happened, and now many of the original themes of Annotea are part of the mainstream Web developer perspective. And yet ... looking at the comments to this 2007 techcrunch survey - http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/10/5-ways-to-mark-up-the-web/ - I see project after project, startup after startup, exploring this space without any great emphasis on data exchange standards. I guess many of them have APIs, probably a lot of them use RSS or Atom feeds. But we certainly haven't yet to the place imagined by Annotea: an annotation layer for the Web that allows comments, scribbles, reviews, discussions to be freely interlinked and overlaid using open standard formats and protocols.

So I'm mailing the relevant (and pretty quiet) lists but cc:'ing semantic-web@... too to ask where folk thing this stuff is heading.

When is an annotation an annotation, versus a page that happens to be a review, or happens to have as it's primary topic another page? For annotations at the page level, it might be that mainstream RDF work (linked data etc) has fulfilled some of the early promise of Annotea.

But for the "annotating parts of a page" scenario that lies at the heart of many people's notion of annotations, there doesn't seem to be much happening in terms of practical and widely adopted standards. Lots of startups, experiments etc but they all seem to be islands. And since annotation systems are only really interesting when you have enough annotations to get decent coverage, this seems a pity.

Thoughts? Am I missing some developments? What would Annotea look like if rebuilt for the Web of 2009? If it's in RDF, the query part would just use SPARQL, and topic classification would be SKOS. What else? Is there implementation experience from Annotea adopters and implementors gathered somewhere? Is there consensus for example on the best bits of information to keep if you want a robust reference to a piece of a potentially evolving page? How well do modern Web design habits (CSS, Ajax etc) interact with the overlay of 3rd party annotations? Is everyone using Firefox addons, javascript bookmarklets and Web proxies or is there some hope for a cross-browser approach on the horizon?

thanks for any suggestions, thoughts, links etc.

cheers,

Dan

Re: Annotea futures? Annotation standards in 2009...

2009-05-22T08:36:08Z

Thanks Nikki, Phil. Good points!

This also reminds me that Media annotations is moving along nicely over
in a separate W3C group. See http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/

Also I've just signed up for a fresh Annotea account, as I wanted to try
Annozilla (http://annozilla.mozdev.org/). It seems all the w3.org signup
machine is still working, which was a pleasant suprise. It sets a user
up with username and password for posting annotations. So - thinking
again about how something like this would be built with 2009-era specs,
I suspect OAuth might be used here. This would allow clients to be
delegated an access token for reading/posting etc annotations. At the
moment Annotea assumes each user has an account and the password for
that account is directly shared with the apps that can post to it.
Perhaps there could be benefit in having the apps (whether desktop,
in-browser or website-based) use oauth tokens instead? Or perhaps I'm
just being trendy and trying to use too many shiny new things? I do
think that AtomPub+Oauth is worth investigating, despite premature
reports (http://norman.walsh.name/2009/05/07/timing) of it's death...

cheers,

Dan

Re: Annotea futures? Annotation standards in 2009...

2009-05-22T08:29:19Z

That's something I ought to look at too, Nikki.

Then there's POWDER which, unless something unexpected happens, will be
at Proposed Rec very soon. That's all about annotating/describing groups
of resources cf. adding annotations within specific resources but, since
the output (once processed) is RDF, it's all interoperable.

Phil.

NJ Rogers, Learning and Research Technology wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> You might want to look at our <http://code.google.com/p/caboto/> project
> which was a small spin-out effort from 3 projects each with a social
> software annotations aspect.
>
> We looked at use cases from different contexts and but this has not
> really been about annotating parts of a page but more about annotating
> resources (with a dedicated 'page') such as "an event", or making a
> time-based video annotation.
>
> Nikki
>
> --On 22 May 2009 16:00 +0200 Dan Brickley <danbri@...> wrote:
>
>> (I'm cc:'ing 3 lists, rather warily; if the thread gets long, please
>> consider trimming it to just use semantic-web@...)
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I'm involved in helping advise a new not-for-profit project that is close
>> in approach to the old Annotea project, looking at annotations within
>> pieces of Web content, and their cross-linking, threading for discussion
>> etc. It's now 2009, over ten years since the original Annotea designs.
>> The Web has changed a lot since then, but the need to annotate it doesn't
>> seem to have gone away.
>>
>> See http://annotea.org/
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/User/Tutorial/quicktutorial and nearby for
>> an overview of Annotea.
>>
>> Since then Web 2.0 has happened, and now many of the original themes of
>> Annotea are part of the mainstream Web developer perspective. And yet ...
>> looking at the comments to this 2007 techcrunch survey -
>> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/10/5-ways-to-mark-up-the-web/ - I see
>> project after project, startup after startup, exploring this space
>> without any great emphasis on data exchange standards. I guess many of
>> them have APIs, probably a lot of them use RSS or Atom feeds. But we
>> certainly haven't yet to the place imagined by Annotea: an annotation
>> layer for the Web that allows comments, scribbles, reviews, discussions
>> to be freely interlinked and overlaid using open standard formats and
>> protocols.
>>
>> So I'm mailing the relevant (and pretty quiet) lists but cc:'ing
>> semantic-web@... too to ask where folk thing this stuff is heading.
>>
>> When is an annotation an annotation, versus a page that happens to be a
>> review, or happens to have as it's primary topic another page? For
>> annotations at the page level, it might be that mainstream RDF work
>> (linked data etc) has fulfilled some of the early promise of Annotea.
>>
>> But for the "annotating parts of a page" scenario that lies at the heart
>> of many people's notion of annotations, there doesn't seem to be much
>> happening in terms of practical and widely adopted standards. Lots of
>> startups, experiments etc but they all seem to be islands. And since
>> annotation systems are only really interesting when you have enough
>> annotations to get decent coverage, this seems a pity.
>>
>> Thoughts? Am I missing some developments? What would Annotea look like if
>> rebuilt for the Web of 2009? If it's in RDF, the query part would just
>> use SPARQL, and topic classification would be SKOS. What else? Is there
>> implementation experience from Annotea adopters and implementors gathered
>> somewhere? Is there consensus for example on the best bits of information
>> to keep if you want a robust reference to a piece of a potentially
>> evolving page? How well do modern Web design habits (CSS, Ajax etc)
>> interact with the overlay of 3rd party annotations? Is everyone using
>> Firefox addons, javascript bookmarklets and Web proxies or is there some
>> hope for a cross-browser approach on the horizon?
>>
>> thanks for any suggestions, thoughts, links etc.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------
> NJ Rogers, Technical Researcher
> (Senior Technical Developer and Coordinator of Web Futures)
> Institute for Learning and Research Technology (ILRT)
> Email:nikki.rogers@...
> Tel: +44(0)117 3314412 (Direct)
> Tel: +44(0)117 3314430 (Office)
>
>

--

Phil Archer
http://philarcher.org/www@20/

i-sieve technologies | W3C Mobile Web Initiative
Making Sense of the Buzz | www.w3.org/Mobile

Re: Annotea futures? Annotation standards in 2009...

2009-05-22T08:19:27Z

Hi Dan,

You might want to look at our <http://code.google.com/p/caboto/> project
which was a small spin-out effort from 3 projects each with a social
software annotations aspect.

We looked at use cases from different contexts and but this has not really
been about annotating parts of a page but more about annotating resources
(with a dedicated 'page') such as "an event", or making a time-based video
annotation.

Nikki

--On 22 May 2009 16:00 +0200 Dan Brickley <danbri@...> wrote:

> (I'm cc:'ing 3 lists, rather warily; if the thread gets long, please
> consider trimming it to just use semantic-web@...)
>
> Hi all
>
> I'm involved in helping advise a new not-for-profit project that is close
> in approach to the old Annotea project, looking at annotations within
> pieces of Web content, and their cross-linking, threading for discussion
> etc. It's now 2009, over ten years since the original Annotea designs.
> The Web has changed a lot since then, but the need to annotate it doesn't
> seem to have gone away.
>
> See http://annotea.org/
> http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/User/Tutorial/quicktutorial and nearby for
> an overview of Annotea.
>
> Since then Web 2.0 has happened, and now many of the original themes of
> Annotea are part of the mainstream Web developer perspective. And yet ...
> looking at the comments to this 2007 techcrunch survey -
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/10/5-ways-to-mark-up-the-web/ - I see
> project after project, startup after startup, exploring this space
> without any great emphasis on data exchange standards. I guess many of
> them have APIs, probably a lot of them use RSS or Atom feeds. But we
> certainly haven't yet to the place imagined by Annotea: an annotation
> layer for the Web that allows comments, scribbles, reviews, discussions
> to be freely interlinked and overlaid using open standard formats and
> protocols.
>
> So I'm mailing the relevant (and pretty quiet) lists but cc:'ing
> semantic-web@... too to ask where folk thing this stuff is heading.
>
> When is an annotation an annotation, versus a page that happens to be a
> review, or happens to have as it's primary topic another page? For
> annotations at the page level, it might be that mainstream RDF work
> (linked data etc) has fulfilled some of the early promise of Annotea.
>
> But for the "annotating parts of a page" scenario that lies at the heart
> of many people's notion of annotations, there doesn't seem to be much
> happening in terms of practical and widely adopted standards. Lots of
> startups, experiments etc but they all seem to be islands. And since
> annotation systems are only really interesting when you have enough
> annotations to get decent coverage, this seems a pity.
>
> Thoughts? Am I missing some developments? What would Annotea look like if
> rebuilt for the Web of 2009? If it's in RDF, the query part would just
> use SPARQL, and topic classification would be SKOS. What else? Is there
> implementation experience from Annotea adopters and implementors gathered
> somewhere? Is there consensus for example on the best bits of information
> to keep if you want a robust reference to a piece of a potentially
> evolving page? How well do modern Web design habits (CSS, Ajax etc)
> interact with the overlay of 3rd party annotations? Is everyone using
> Firefox addons, javascript bookmarklets and Web proxies or is there some
> hope for a cross-browser approach on the horizon?
>
> thanks for any suggestions, thoughts, links etc.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>

----------------------
NJ Rogers, Technical Researcher
(Senior Technical Developer and Coordinator of Web Futures)
Institute for Learning and Research Technology (ILRT)
Email:nikki.rogers@...
Tel: +44(0)117 3314412 (Direct)
Tel: +44(0)117 3314430 (Office)

[Fwd: Re: Annotea futures? Annotation standards in 2009...]

2009-05-22T07:33:58Z

( Resent after re-subscribing to this list with danbri@..., my
original msg which bounced was cc: semantic-web@... and
public-annotea-dev@... ,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2009May/0303.html )

-------- Original Message --------

(I'm cc:'ing 3 lists, rather warily; if the thread gets long, please
consider trimming it to just use semantic-web@...)

Hi all

I'm involved in helping advise a new not-for-profit project that is
close in approach to the old Annotea project, looking at annotations
within pieces of Web content, and their cross-linking, threading for
discussion etc. It's now 2009, over ten years since the original Annotea
designs. The Web has changed a lot since then, but the need to annotate
it doesn't seem to have gone away.

See http://annotea.org/
http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/User/Tutorial/quicktutorial and nearby
for an overview of Annotea.

Since then Web 2.0 has happened, and now many of the original themes of
Annotea are part of the mainstream Web developer perspective. And yet
... looking at the comments to this 2007 techcrunch survey -
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/10/5-ways-to-mark-up-the-web/ - I see
project after project, startup after startup, exploring this space
without any great emphasis on data exchange standards. I guess many of
them have APIs, probably a lot of them use RSS or Atom feeds. But we
certainly haven't yet to the place imagined by Annotea: an annotation
layer for the Web that allows comments, scribbles, reviews, discussions
to be freely interlinked and overlaid using open standard formats and
protocols.

So I'm mailing the relevant (and pretty quiet) lists but cc:'ing
semantic-web@... too to ask where folk thing this stuff is heading.

When is an annotation an annotation, versus a page that happens to be a
review, or happens to have as it's primary topic another page? For
annotations at the page level, it might be that mainstream RDF work
(linked data etc) has fulfilled some of the early promise of Annotea.

But for the "annotating parts of a page" scenario that lies at the heart
of many people's notion of annotations, there doesn't seem to be much
happening in terms of practical and widely adopted standards. Lots of
startups, experiments etc but they all seem to be islands. And since
annotation systems are only really interesting when you have enough
annotations to get decent coverage, this seems a pity.

Thoughts? Am I missing some developments? What would Annotea look like
if rebuilt for the Web of 2009? If it's in RDF, the query part would
just use SPARQL, and topic classification would be SKOS. What else? Is
there implementation experience from Annotea adopters and implementors
gathered somewhere? Is there consensus for example on the best bits of
information to keep if you want a robust reference to a piece of a
potentially evolving page? How well do modern Web design habits (CSS,
Ajax etc) interact with the overlay of 3rd party annotations? Is
everyone using Firefox addons, javascript bookmarklets and Web proxies
or is there some hope for a cross-browser approach on the horizon?

thanks for any suggestions, thoughts, links etc.

cheers,

Dan

Annotea futures? Annotation standards in 2009...

2009-05-22T07:01:48Z

(I'm cc:'ing 3 lists, rather warily; if the thread gets long, please
consider trimming it to just use semantic-web@...)

Hi all

I'm involved in helping advise a new not-for-profit project that is
close in approach to the old Annotea project, looking at annotations
within pieces of Web content, and their cross-linking, threading for
discussion etc. It's now 2009, over ten years since the original Annotea
designs. The Web has changed a lot since then, but the need to annotate
it doesn't seem to have gone away.

See http://annotea.org/
http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/User/Tutorial/quicktutorial and nearby
for an overview of Annotea.

Since then Web 2.0 has happened, and now many of the original themes of
Annotea are part of the mainstream Web developer perspective. And yet
... looking at the comments to this 2007 techcrunch survey -
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/10/5-ways-to-mark-up-the-web/ - I see
project after project, startup after startup, exploring this space
without any great emphasis on data exchange standards. I guess many of
them have APIs, probably a lot of them use RSS or Atom feeds. But we
certainly haven't yet to the place imagined by Annotea: an annotation
layer for the Web that allows comments, scribbles, reviews, discussions
to be freely interlinked and overlaid using open standard formats and
protocols.

So I'm mailing the relevant (and pretty quiet) lists but cc:'ing
semantic-web@... too to ask where folk thing this stuff is heading.

When is an annotation an annotation, versus a page that happens to be a
review, or happens to have as it's primary topic another page? For
annotations at the page level, it might be that mainstream RDF work
(linked data etc) has fulfilled some of the early promise of Annotea.

But for the "annotating parts of a page" scenario that lies at the heart
of many people's notion of annotations, there doesn't seem to be much
happening in terms of practical and widely adopted standards. Lots of
startups, experiments etc but they all seem to be islands. And since
annotation systems are only really interesting when you have enough
annotations to get decent coverage, this seems a pity.

Thoughts? Am I missing some developments? What would Annotea look like
if rebuilt for the Web of 2009? If it's in RDF, the query part would
just use SPARQL, and topic classification would be SKOS. What else? Is
there implementation experience from Annotea adopters and implementors
gathered somewhere? Is there consensus for example on the best bits of
information to keep if you want a robust reference to a piece of a
potentially evolving page? How well do modern Web design habits (CSS,
Ajax etc) interact with the overlay of 3rd party annotations? Is
everyone using Firefox addons, javascript bookmarklets and Web proxies
or is there some hope for a cross-browser approach on the horizon?

thanks for any suggestions, thoughts, links etc.

cheers,

Dan

K-CAP 2009 Workshop on Semantic Authoring, Annotation and Knowledge Markup (SAAKM 2009)

2009-05-19T13:43:44Z

CfP: K-CAP 2009 Workshop on Semantic Authoring, Annotation and Knowledge Markup (SAAKM 2009)

2009-05-19T13:35:25Z

[Apologies for cross posting]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
CALL FOR PAPERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Semantic Authoring, Annotation and Knowledge Markup (SAAKM 2009)
http://saakm2009.semanticauthoring.org/
1 September 2009

co-located with the 5th International Conference on
Knowledge Capture (K-Cap 2009)
Redondo Beach, California, USA, 1-4 September 2009
http://kcap09.stanford.edu/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Capturing knowledge by using markup techniques and by supporting semantic
annotations is a major technique for creating metadata. It is beneficial
in a wide range of content-oriented intelligent applications.
One important application for instance is the Semantic Web. The research
about the WWW currently strives to augment syntactic information
already present in the Web by semantic metadata in order to achieve a
Semantic Web that human and software agents can understand. Here, one
of the most urgent challenges now is a knowledge-capturing problem,
i.e., how one may turn existing syntactic resources into knowledge
structures. A solution is to markup web documents in order to create
metadata on the web or to author new documents in a way that they
contain markup directly.

Another application is the indexing and searching of multimedia (and
multilingual) data. It is difficult to completely process the content of
multimedia data, even with technologies based on natural language
processing, image processing, machine vision and speech recognition.
Therefore, semantic annotation is one of the promising methodologies
to define semantic structures on the content.

WORKSHOP GOALS

This workshop aims at bringing together members of different overlapping
communities that share the interest on semantic authoring and annotation
for developing methods and tools:
* Semantic Web researchers who use semantic authoring and annotation
to enrich the web with distributed relational meta-data in order to
enable a machine-readable web.
* Members of the human language technology community, developing
information extraction systems for the generation of meta-data
* People from the multimedia content domain, indexing and searching
of multimedia (and multilingual) data.
* Researchers who address innovative topics and applications by semantic
annotation (semantic annotation of databases, annotation of
web/grid services, semantic hypertext, etc.)
This will give an opportunity to push further the discussion upon the
potential of semantic annotation across these communities.

TOPICS OF INTEREST

Potential topics include but are not limited to:
* semantic authoring and publishing
* document engineering
* deriving semantics from document structure and content
* ontology-based authoring and markup
* knowledge markup in the Semantic Web
* standards for supporting knowledge markup, e.g., RDFa, microformats, GRDDL
* using semantic annotations to define knowledge
* integrated software architecture based on semantic annotation
* multimedia annotation (e.g., by using MPEG-7)
* annotation of software components
* linguistic aspects of semantic annotation
* capturing knowledge through Information Extraction and NLP
* text mining for creating knowledge markup
* mining semantic information from blogs, forums or news sources.
* collaborative, shared tagging and annotation
* evaluation of annotation frameworks
* semantic annotation in Semantic Wikis
* semantic annotation of multilingual web sources
* deriving formal semantics from (flat or hierarchical) tagging systems
* vocabularies and ontologies for semantic authoring and annotation
* tools for supporting knowledge markup, semantic annotation,
semantic authoring, ...

IMPORTANT DATES

Submission deadline: June 15, 2009
Notification of acceptance: July 15, 2009
Camera-ready paper submission: July 27, 2009
Workshop date: September 1, 2009

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

* Siegfried Handschuh, DERI Galway, Ireland
* Michael Sintek, DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Germany
* Nigel Collier, NII, Japan
* Anita de Waard, University of Utrecht, Netherlands

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

We invite submissions of full technical papers and short position papers.
Authors of accepted technical and position papers will be invited to
present their papers in the workshop

Format requirements for submissions of technical papers are:
* Full papers - should not exceed 8 pages in length (including references)
* Position papers - are expected up to 3 pages.

Papers must be submitted as PDF and strictly adhere to ACM proceedings format
(http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates).
For submissions, the authors are expected to use the following link:
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=saakm09

Extended draft paper submission: EISWT-09 call for papers

2009-05-02T05:46:41Z

Extended draft paper submission: EISWT-09 call for papers This Extended Call for Papers of the 2009 International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems and Web Technologies (EISWT-09) (website: http://www.PromoteResearch.org ) is for those who didn't get a chance to submit the papers for the earlier call for papers. The papers received and accepted in response to this extended call for papers will be included in the final version of the respective conference proceedings. These proceedings will be either ready by the time of the conference (i.e., they will be available during the conference) or soon after the conference (before the end of August 2009), based how fast the proceedings can be prepared. Note: If you have already submitted a paper (whether accepted or rejected or currently under review) for MULTICONF-09, please DO NOT submit that paper again to this extended call for papers. IMPORTANT DATES: Draft paper submission date: May 11, 2009 Acceptance/rejection decision: May 21, 2009 Camera ready paper and copyright and pre-registration due: May 28, 2009 Conference dates: July 13-16, 2009 EISWT-09 will be held during July 13-16 2009 in Orlando, FL, USA. We invite draft paper submissions. The conference will take place at the same time and venue where several other international conferences are taking place. The other conferences include: • International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition (AIPR-09) • International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Control Systems (ARCS-09) • International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, Genomics and Chemoinformatics (BCBGC-09) • International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking and Communication Systems (HPCNCS-09) • International Conference on Information Security and Privacy (ISP-09) • International Conference on Recent Advances in Information Technology and Applications (RAITA-09) • International Conference on Software Engineering Theory and Practice (SETP-09) • International Conference on Theory and Applications of Computational Science (TACS-09) • International Conference on Theoretical and Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (TMFCS-09) The website http://www.PromoteResearch.org contains more details. Sincerely John Edward Publicity committee

CfP: K-CAP 2009 Workshop on Semantic Authoring, Annotation and Knowledge Markup (SAAKM 2009)

2009-04-28T07:30:32Z

[Apologies for cross posting]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
CALL FOR PAPERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Semantic Authoring, Annotation and Knowledge Markup (SAAKM 2009)
http://saakm2009.semanticauthoring.org/
1 September 2009

co-located with the 5th International Conference on
Knowledge Capture (K-Cap 2009)
Redondo Beach, California, USA, 1-4 September 2009
http://kcap09.stanford.edu/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Capturing knowledge by using markup techniques and by supporting semantic
annotations is a major technique for creating metadata. It is beneficial
in a wide range of content-oriented intelligent applications.
One important application for instance is the Semantic Web. The research
about the WWW currently strives to augment syntactic information
already present in the Web by semantic metadata in order to achieve a
Semantic Web that human and software agents can understand. Here, one
of the most urgent challenges now is a knowledge-capturing problem,
i.e., how one may turn existing syntactic resources into knowledge
structures. A solution is to markup web documents in order to create
metadata on the web or to author new documents in a way that they
contain markup directly.

Another application is the indexing and searching of multimedia (and
multilingual) data. It is difficult to completely process the content of
multimedia data, even with technologies based on natural language
processing, image processing, machine vision and speech recognition.
Therefore, semantic annotation is one of the promising methodologies
to define semantic structures on the content.

WORKSHOP GOALS

This workshop aims at bringing together members of different overlapping
communities that share the interest on semantic authoring and annotation
for developing methods and tools:
* Semantic Web researchers who use semantic authoring and annotation
to enrich the web with distributed relational meta-data in order to
enable a machine-readable web.
* Members of the human language technology community, developing
information extraction systems for the generation of meta-data
* People from the multimedia content domain, indexing and searching
of multimedia (and multilingual) data.
* Researchers who address innovative topics and applications by semantic
annotation (semantic annotation of databases, annotation of
web/grid services, semantic hypertext, etc.)
This will give an opportunity to push further the discussion upon the
potential of semantic annotation across these communities.

TOPICS OF INTEREST

Potential topics include but are not limited to:
* semantic authoring and publishing
* document engineering
* deriving semantics from document structure and content
* ontology-based authoring and markup
* knowledge markup in the Semantic Web
* standards for supporting knowledge markup, e.g.,
RDFa, microformats, GRDDL
* using semantic annotations to define knowledge
* integrated software architecture based on semantic annotation
* multimedia annotation (e.g., by using MPEG-7)
* annotation of software components
* linguistic aspects of semantic annotation
* capturing knowledge through Information Extraction and NLP
* text mining for creating knowledge markup
* mining semantic information from blogs, forums or news sources.
* collaborative, shared tagging and annotation
* evaluation of annotation frameworks
* semantic annotation in Semantic Wikis
* semantic annotation of multilingual web sources
* deriving formal semantics from (flat or hierarchical) tagging systems
* vocabularies and ontologies for semantic authoring and annotation
* tools for supporting knowledge markup, semantic annotation,
semantic authoring, ...

IMPORTANT DATES

Submission deadline: June 15, 2009
Notification of acceptance: July 15, 2009
Camera-ready paper submission: July 27, 2009
Workshop date: September 1, 2009

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

* Siegfried Handschuh, DERI Galway, Ireland
* Michael Sintek, DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Germany
* Nigel Collier, NII, Japan
* Anita de Waard, University of Utrecht, Netherlands

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

We invite submissions of full technical papers and short position papers.
Authors of accepted technical and position papers will be invited to
present their papers in the workshop

Format requirements for submissions of technical papers are:
* Full papers - should not exceed 8 pages in length (including references)
* Position papers - are expected up to 3 pages.

Papers must be submitted as PDF and strictly adhere to ACM
proceedings format:
http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates

For submissions, the authors are expected to use the following link:
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=saakm09

Yawas Firefox extension

2009-03-30T11:40:47Z

For what it's worth, the latest YAWAS highlighting/annotation tool for web pages is available at:
http://yawas.keeness.net

You are free to modify, build upon, etc. Even commercially.
Maybe someone will be interested in making a version that stores highlights in W3C formats/servers.
Currently, Yawas uses Google Bookmarks to persist data.

Laurent.

Re: W3C standard Annotea / Open Source ECM

2009-03-29T20:07:46Z

With all due respect ... isn't this a strange question to be asking on
this mailing list? Questions about which W3C (or other) standards are
applicable to open source ECMs would surely be better asked on forums
that discuss open source ECMs and their implementation.

-- Steve

Wendy L. wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I recently came across the W3C standard Annotea. This format was being
> suggested because Nuxeo/ECM allowed for ease of use and little
> programming efforts. They played well together. Are other W3C
> standards under discussions similar to Annotea where they play well
> with other open source ECM’s or is there encouragement to use W3C
> standards as a way to make open source more interoperable? I would
> like to be knowledgeable of these types of initiatives so I can look
> at my schemas and DTDs and see where efforts can be reduced with our
> programming staff.
>
>
>
> *Thanks*
>
> *-datatomato!*
>

Re: W3C standard Annotea / Open Source ECM

2009-03-29T19:57:27Z

W3C standard Annotea / Open Source ECM

2009-03-23T08:28:48Z

Hi,

I recently came across the W3C standard Annotea. This format was being suggested because Nuxeo/ECM allowed for ease of use and little programming efforts. They played well together. Are other W3C standards under discussions similar to Annotea where they play well with other open source ECM’s or is there encouragement to use W3C standards as a way to make open source more interoperable? I would like to be knowledgeable of these types of initiatives so I can look at my schemas and DTDs and see where efforts can be reduced with our programming staff.

Thanks

-datatomato!

CFP: 4th Special Track on Ontologies for Biomedical Systems at 22nd IEEE CBMS 2009

2009-02-26T21:49:32Z

CALL FOR PAPERS
----------
4th Special Track on Ontologies for Biomedical Systems
3-4 August 2009
Albuquerque, New Mexico

http://cbms09.biomap.org/

22nd IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems

http://cvial.ee.ttu.edu/cbms2009/
----------

Biomedical Ontologies have developed in an uncoordinated way, often reflecting mere relations of 'association' between what are called 'concepts', and serving primarily the purposes of information extraction from on-line biomedical literature and databases. In recent years, we have learned a great deal about the criteria which must be satisfied if ontology is to allow true information integration and automatic reasoning across data and information derived from different sources. The goal of this track is to survey existing biomedical ontologies and reform them in such a way as to allow true information integration in biomedical domain. Authors are invited to submit original papers exploring the theories, techniques, and applications of biomedical ontologies. Papers are invited (but not limited) to the following themes:

* Biomedical Ontologies for Genetics, Proteomics, Diseases, Privacy etc
* Conceptual Models for Biological and Medical Data
* Semantics in Biological Data Modeling
* Use of semantics to manage Interoperation in Biomedical Databases
* Semantic Web technologies and formalisms for Biomedical Data
* Ontology representation and exchange languages for bioinformatics
* Biomedical Ontologies and OWL
* Biological Data Integration and Management using Ontologies
* Biomedical Data Engineering using Ontologies
* Application of Biomedical Ontologies for Heterogeneous Database Access
* Query Optimization Techniques for Biomedical Database using Ontologies
* Support of Ontologies for Biological Information Retrieval and Web Services
* Change Management in Biomedical Ontologies
* Tools for Development and Management of Biomedical Ontologies

PAPER SUBMISSION:

No hardcopy submissions are being accepted. Electronic submissions of original technical research papers will only be accepted in PDF format. Use a maximum of 6 pages IEEE two-column format, including figures and references. All submissions will be done electronically via the CBMS 2009 web submission system (http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ieeecbms2009). Select the track "Ontologies for Biomedical Systems", provide the information about the paper title, authors, keywords, and corresponding author's information (telephone, fax, mailing address, e-mail address). Please note that author names should not appear on the paper. Submission implies the willingness of at least one of the authors to register and present the paper at the CBMS 2009 Symposium. All papers will be peer reviewed by at least two independent referees. All accepted papers will be included in the conference proceedings. Selected papers from the track will be published in Special Issue of International Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and Informatics (IJHISI) in 2010.

IMPORTANT DATES:

April 1, 2009     Paper Submission Due
May 25, 2009     Notification of acceptance
June 21, 2009     Final camera-ready paper due
June 21, 2009     Pre-registration deadline

You must pre-register to have your paper published in the proceedings. If you only plan to attend and are not submitting a paper, pre-registration is still strongly encouraged.

TRACK CHAIRS:

Amandeep S. Sidhu
WA Centre for Comparative Genomics, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

Matthew I. Bellgard
WA Centre for Comparative Genomics, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

Jake Chen
Indiana University - Purdue University, Indianapolis, USA

For further questions, please contact technical program chair at: cbms@...
----------