[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Annotation use case
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings! I think the charter needs to be more specific than "rich annotation" with boundary on what the TC may or may not consider by way of annotation. I say that not to impose some arbirary limit but as a means of selling participation in this proposed TC to a broader audience. For example, if the TC scope were to explicitly include legacy case decisions, currently held in a variety of formats, here is one use case that might result in more applications to use the work product of the TC. Did you know that people spent "$2.3 billion on genealogy products and services last year...?" http://mashable.com/2013/05/03/digital-family-tree/ Yes, $2.3 billion. A non-trivial market. How does that related to the future legalcite TC? It would be an unusual lawsuit indeed that didn't have people in it. Not just the parties but witnesses, lawyers, judges, etc. Assume you are a legacy publisher with content stretching back into the 19th century or further. A legalcite specification could result in genealogy researchers, both volunteer and commercial, developing genealogical annotations for case law that drives demand for your pay-per-view content. An out-of-line solution that maps into the data stores of legacy publishers, means that without changing any of their existing data structures, legacy publishers can benefit from the activities of third parties. Their benefiting from legalcite work will give them an incentive to foster the development of applications that use the legalcite work in order to tap into the genealogy market. Not to mention that legacy publishers might join the legalcite TC in order to make sure mappings and other TC work products meet their needs. But in order to make that pitch, I think the TC charter needs to be more than identifying an issue and saying the TC intends to propose some solution to it. Hope everyone is having a great day! Patrick PS: And no, the proposed legalcite TC should not develop its own genealogical markup. There are any number of existing systems that could be wrapped in a legalcite element. - -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB) Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJScnXUAAoJEAudyeI2QFGoHzkQAI32+TWAf6fAR52Kxipwjr38 iHZcpGfaib7UFDBywOhHVZGX9sLOd1YeFoVtcWurCL6TvivwcLQFkVo4vgMzag20 WlxaFMRq97s/mscCzWF/nCeeFLzTTtz1bVGc3Ag7ED0oUQmKI1WqfRD91EKXGq9h uxbWZL7DlOIQoU7mBd9JYJA7NkDD47xNqF51ru9mdY257LlUh25oNbshxYkcaWbi AiPwz8U3XM1FRT5nMHgYUGcVOiZdNStaVaDh2g3XNIvM+pB6jIIXu4R2mmxKZ+p8 9vopCHdwO7+Z12HVLs79Eh19mnR7Jwd9NEhQ3Oltsp879nqffdQYiBvygOTmXVuZ gaME3PjZqddX8JArB4YZBLGzGCmmBv3Og9PmZInscoNj8oT2he/wKmSo6rvc4DBU z0sNp5VsnU31OuVnCcnd9XfREQROFZ1sdSx9fb9hYUDjTYndWvQXiUyDuCVzmFbg P2cBW3j+L2fWPS1TP+2Z0ZZ/Wq1cd9JtpUpQNxFnrM+5l6X4hmiU3Qq58D4eyqzU n7XN9DvA7EvJ5CuSO6w3P4pl9XxomdwntHr+Z+jEzIDHF20EhF61iq30T7gEoRoJ siH7IA42rTMggY7vjXvAYJLY9mCXs3hzWbh/Vf87FaQ3NjZinPZSxiJCqjkVEv6y oBwnbn/lo5/kcDcjKjUV =6JS9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]