[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       klink
Subject:    Annotea
From:       wheeler () kde ! org (Scott Wheeler)
Date:       2005-03-19 23:01:59
Message-ID: 200503192303.36298.wheeler () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 14 March 2005 13:07, Stanislav Karchebny wrote:
> Have you guys looked at Annotea? (I guess you did) Whats your opinion?
> Do they define any URI-to-annotation mapping we could also use?
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/

>From what I can tell here it would be bound by the same constraints as RDF 
itself.  I'm reading up on RDF at the moment (picked up Practical RDF from 
O'Reilly earlier this week), but it seems that it's mostly inappropriate for 
KLink.  RDF is focused on conveying meaning rather than connections more 
generally (meaningful or not).

K?vin may want to jump in on this at some point as, well, he understand such 
things much better than I do.  ;-)

In a nutshell I think the fundamental difference between a KLink like 
structure and semantic webs is that KLink is more concerned with tracking 
unqualified relationships and whatever data that it can get a handle on along 
the way and that "meaning" is an emergent property of a web of relationships.

RDF and friends are more concerned with providing a notation for describing 
resources.

Basically it's a question of where the data becomes meaningful -- KLink says 
it's meaningful after it's out of the system, RDF says before it's meaningful 
before it comes in.  Or something.  (Note that this is just after my 
experience of a couple days of reading.)

One of the questions currently going through my head is to what extent one can 
be mapped onto the other, but I won't even try to answer that until I feel 
like I have a better handle on more of the semantic web structures.

-Scott

-- 
Anyone who has begun to think, places some portion of the world in jeopardy.
-John Dewey
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]