Disclaimer: the following is a somewhat off-topic metacomment: > ... I do not know what you mean by 'works best'. Most remote > annotation occurs offline and is never aggregated, but works just fine > for the production of notes for one's personal journal. We would be > better off if there were a ready way for noters to smoothly aggregate > and share such notes, but smooth doesn't mean instantaneous; it would > be enough for annotations to aggregate smoothly with an asynchronous > network with effective latencies in months.
This is a beautiful idea -- but I do not know how achievable. My own method of learning a not-too-big topic (e.g., "what all needs to be put into a subdirectory of /home/olpc/Activities/ ?") is to make up a 'Cheat Sheet' that lists (and tersely describes) all the pertinent elements. [This definitely is "remote annotation".] But when it comes to "aggregating" what I've done, the best that I can think of would be to send out a copy of my 'Cheat Sheet' to someone trying to figure out the same topic. Then if the recipient can decipher my style and remarks, "sharing" will have occurred. [It would do me no good to send my 'Cheat Sheet' to the original author - what I've made up is an 'extract', not an 'addendum'.] An example of a means to "fill in" information is XML. Maybe we should wish for a genius to make up an XML 'Annotation Template' -- which though independently filled in by multiple commentators about a given Work, could then be "merged smoothly" to produce either a stand-alone adjunct to the original Work, or actually be aggregated with the original Work to produce a new version of that Work. mikus _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar