Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Thomas B. Passin" <email@example.com>
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:59:46 -0500
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,
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.
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?
> ]]] - 
> Or in other words, using XHTML  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 .
> 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  to imply our
> meaning, for example as discussed in the semantic design principles , 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.