[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Annotations, sets, & servers
> From: gramlich@riesling.eng.sun.com (Wayne C. Gramlich)
> > From ackerman@sima.ICS.UCI.EDU Tue Oct 17 03:07 PDT 1995
> >
> > > ({target_url}, {annotation_url})
> >
> > Does this handle word-level granularity, considering the annotator doesn't
> > own the document?
> The actual structure of an annotation is TBD. The word-level
> granularity used for embedded annotations requires some strategy for
> identifying the location in the target document to insert the embedded
> annotation.
What we would like is some extension of the URLs to specify this location
within a document. Since URLs in general don't have this, other than
marginally for http URLs, we could generalize the specification from
a simple URL to a (URL, locator) pair. I'll just call it "annotation"
below.
In addition, we want to allow multiple targets, as has been suggested
by a few people (my draft mentioned it too), but do we do this with
multiple (annotation, target) pairs, or is it a tuple of
(annotation, target1, target2, ...)? They are logically equivalent,
so far.
In addition, we want to allow each (annotation, target) pair to have
a different relationship. This relationship is independent of the
annotation itself because the same annotation may have a different
relationship with another target. E.g. an agreement with one a
disagreement with another. Thus we have several triples:
(annotation, target, relationship). Or it could be (annotation,
(target1, rel1), (target2, rel2), ...)
In addition, we want the "link" represented by this triple to be an
object itself, with an identifier, and it may be the target of another
link or annotation triple.
Is there anyone on the annotation working group list who is also on the
link working group list besides me?
dan
Follow-Ups: