45 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. From a technical point of view, the IndieWeb people have worked on a number of simple, easy to implement protocols, which provide the ability for web services to interact openly with each other, but in a way that allows for a website owner to define policy over what content they will accept.

      Thought you might like Web Monetization.

    1. Donations

      To add some other intermediary services:

      To add a service for groups:

      To add a service that enables fans to support the creators directly and anonymously via microdonations or small donations by pre-charging their Coil account to spend on content streaming or tipping the creators' wallets via a layer containing JS script following the Interledger Protocol proposed to W3C:

      If you want to know more, head to Web Monetization or Community or Explainer

      Disclaimer: I am a recipient of a grant from the Interledger Foundation, so there would be a Conflict of Interest if I edited directly. Plus, sharing on Hypothesis allows other users to chime in.

  2. Nov 2022
  3. Aug 2022
  4. May 2022
    1. DCAT is an RDF vocabulary designed to facilitate interoperability between data catalogs published on the Web. This document defines the schema and provides examples for its use. DCAT enables a publisher to describe datasets and data services in a catalog using a standard model and vocabulary that facilitates the consumption and aggregation of metadata from multiple catalogs. This can increase the discoverability of datasets and data services. It also makes it possible to have a decentralized approach to publishing data catalogs and makes federated search for datasets across catalogs in multiple sites possible using the same query mechanism and structure. Aggregated DCAT metadata can serve as a manifest file as part of the digital preservation process.
  5. Feb 2022
    1. Aus diesem Grund definiert das World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) verschiedene Wissensrepräsentationssprachen, die inhaltlich aufeinander aufbauen,

      Grund für Standardisierung der Repräsentationssprachen

    1. Die mit Linked Data beschrittene Lösung macht sich existierende Technologien zu Nut-ze, die vom W3C2 als Semantic Web Technologien standardisiert wurden.

    Tags

    Annotators

  6. Jan 2022
    1. This document contains information about embedding metadata in W3C Technical Reports (TR) using RDFa.
    1. The internet is for end users: any change made to the web platform has the potential to affect vast numbers of people, and may have a profound impact on any person’s life. [RFC8890]
  7. Nov 2021
  8. Jul 2021
  9. Apr 2020
    1. The WCAG 2.0 is a stable, referenceable technical standard that helps developers of any kind of online content (from websites to text and PDF files), create or check their materials for accessibility. Many grant givers or governments (like the European Union) even require institutions to follow those guidelines when publishing public sector information or education resources. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

      The ultimate resource on accessibility directly from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). WCAG 2.0 documentation is the definitive guide for accessibility on the web and is aimed at web developers, designers, and content creators.

    1. pushing the grain-size of the hypertext to the morphemic level

      This ability is clearly reflected in 2017's W3C Web Annotation standard

  10. Jan 2020
    1. The Web Annotation Data Model specification describes a structured model and format to enable annotations to be shared and reused across different hardware and software platforms.

      The publication of this web standard changed everything. I look forward to true testing of interoperable open annotation. The publication of the standard nearly three years ago was a game changer, but the game is still in progress. The future potential is unlimited!

    1. The idea of a system enabling a multiplicity of independent individuals to create lightweight value-added "trails" through a document space was envisaged most prominently by Vannevar Bush as early as 1945 [BUSH]. ComMentor can be thought of as a tool which such "trail blazers" use to add value to contents, and which other people use to find guidance based on these human-created super-structures. The overall architecture can be seen as a platform where value-added providers can provide their services (as a third player next to content providers and end users).

      I'd heard of ComMentor before, but I hadn't noticed that Terry and Martin cited Vannevar and mentioned the notion of trails here. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/

  11. Dec 2018
    1. without opening a separate tab)

      "In general, it is better not to open new windows and tabs since they can be disorienting for people, especially people who have difficulty perceiving visual content."

      https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G200.html

  12. May 2018
  13. Sep 2017
  14. Aug 2017
  15. Jun 2017
    1. The whole point of the newly-minted web annotation standard is to enable an ecosystem of interoperable annotation clients and servers, analogous to comparable ecosystems of email and web clients and servers.

      I think one of the ideas I'm struggling with here. Is web annotation just about research, or to advance conversation on the web? I sense this is part of decentralization too (thus, an ecosystem), but where does it fit?

  16. Apr 2017
    1. Really useful session well worth your time! All the longed for teacher, student, researcher, creator & user annotation desires for the web, at long last on the way to fulfilment!

  17. Feb 2017
    1. Felt way more appropriate to comment here than in the comments at the body of the page :).

      It was humbling to interact act with such dedicated researchers and practitioners and to watch these documents take shape.

      Thanks, everyone!

    1. The W3C’s existence depends on its mission being grounded in moral certainty. That certainty is the only substantial obstacle preventing it from being replaced with easier, more pragmatic standardisation efforts that focus exclusively on implementation.

      End of the W3C's influence?

    1. A URI can be further classified as a locator, a name, or both. The term "Uniform Resource Locator" (URL) refers to the subset of URIs that, in addition to identifying a resource, provide a means of locating the resource by describing its primary access mechanism (e.g., its network "location").
    1. Many Annotations refer to part of a resource, rather than all of it, as the Target. We call that part of the resource a Segment (of Interest). A Selector is used to describe how to determine the Segment from within the Source resource.
  18. Feb 2016
    1. The feed is how stuff enters their content system. But the feed itself is outside, leaving it available for other services to use. It's great when this happens, rather than doing it via a WG that tend to go on for years, and create stuff that's super-complicated, why not design something that works for you, put it out there with no restrictions and let whatever's going to happen happen.

      Interesting approach for hypothes.is to consider?

  19. Nov 2015
    1. If you have a copy of the ReSpec repository handy, you may see that there is also a respec2html.js tool under tools/. Feel free to try using it instead of the above process, but please note that it is not used much currently and may behave in a somewhat experimental manner (experiences with it vary — but it's worth a shot if you're looking for a way to generate ReSpec output from the command line).

      Respec (sadly) doesn't quite have a command line tool...at least not one comparable to a browser's output.

      Maybe PhantomJS (which Respec uses for tests) would do a better job?

  20. Oct 2015
    1. Having these two axioms in place and given e.g. the information that Sasha is related to Hillary via the property hasWife, a reasoner would be able to infer that Sasha is a man and Hillary a woman.

      Not necessarily. Increasingly same-sex marriages are more widely accepted. W3C should re-visit their documentation to ensure that they're not excluding LGBTQ populations and don't perpetuate heteronormativity.

  21. Sep 2015
    1. The W3C Annotation Working Group has a joint deliverable with the W3C Web Application Working Group called “Robust Anchoring”. This deliverable will provide a general framework for anchoring; and, although defined within the framework of annotations, the specification can also be used for other fragment identification use cases. Similarly, the W3C Media Fragments specification [media-frags] may prove useful to address some of the use cases. Finally, the Streamable Package Format draft, mentioned above, also includes a fragment identification mechanism. Would that package format be adopted for EPUB+WEB, that fragment identification may also come to the fore as an important mechanism to consider.

      Anchors are a key issue. Hope that deliverable will suffice.

  22. Aug 2015
    1. Packages can be used to populate caches associated with multiple URLs without making multiple requests.

      Alex Russell, a Googler who loves Chrome but hates app stores, is passionate about this.

      Interesting chatter at https://mobile.twitter.com/fabricedesre/status/636014195893342208

  23. May 2015
    1. Most of these difficulties would be addressed by the fundamental characteristics of a digital annotation system. The digital annotation system would automatically store and link annotations and sources with machine tidiness. As noted above, it is more than likely in a distributed system that annotations will be stored separately from the sources to which they refer. However, unlike the real-world equivalents, they would automatically hold information that links them effectively to the associated source. However, it is incumbent upon that system to display a clear association between annotation and source. But the potentially limitless capacity of an electronic writing space, indeed one that expands its viewing size to the later reader commensurate with the size of text inserted, would easily resolve the analogue annotator's problem of insufficient writing space. Moreover, it is worth taking into consideration the change that such expanded capacity may have upon the behaviour of annotators; an uncramped writing space may equally 'uncramp' their style and encourage them to be more expansive and, possibly, more informative. Equally important, there is no limit upon subsequent annotations relating to the original source or, for that matter, to the initial annotation. Clearly an example where the distributed nature of digital annotation presents a clear advantage. Even a clearer annotation generally still lacks all or some of the following: an author, or author status, a date or time, and where the annotation relies on other text or supporting evidence, (e.g. "This contradicts his view in Chapter 3"), it may have no clear direct reference either. A further complication might be the annotations, (or even counter-annotations) of another anonymous party. It is worth remarking that a digital system would be able to record the date and time of the annotation action, the source, and give some indication of the person who initiated the marking. If it were deemed unacceptable in certain systems, the annotation could be rejected as giving inadequate content. Once again the advantage of virtually unlimited writing space would allow the annotator to quote, if desired, the text to which (s)he refers elsewhere; alternatively the functionality that permits the annotator to highlight a source could also be adapted to permit the highlighting of a reference item for inclusion in the annotation body as a hypertext link. Some, but not necessarily all of the analogue difficulties may have been encountered; but they all serve to illustrate the difficulties that arise the moment annotations cease only to be read by their original author. It is outside that limited context that we largely need to consider annotations in the distributed digital environment. Picking up on this aspect, we might therefore consider the challenge posed by any system of annotation that intends to have an audience of greater than one, and, conceivably of scores or hundreds of annotators and annotation readers. Irrespective of their number, what makes such multiple annotations unreliable is one's ignorance of the kind of person who made the annotation: expert? amateur? joker? authority? Who wrote the annotation probably ranks as more important than any other undisclosed information about it. In this regard an annotator is no different from an author or writer of papers. Understanding the authority with which an annotation is made can be a key determinant in users' behaviour when accessing annotations across a distributed system.

      refs to role of UX in enabling digital annot to best "handwritten annots"

  24. Apr 2015
    1. This part of the Character Model for the World Wide Web covers string matching—the process by which a specification or implementation defines whether two string values are the same or different from one another.
  25. Nov 2014
    1. Still, there are hints that, while the discussion of the group is still being framed, the bitcoin industry could assert itself in the process through greater involvement.

      "Hints"? That's the whole point. Participation is all there is. Do it.