4 ms·
I've been wanting to provide a high-fidelity many-to-many commenting system inside of a text editor or browser since I was in college. My thought was that if yo
by foxhedgehog 10y ago
I've been wanting to provide a high-fidelity many-to-many commenting system inside of a text editor or browser since I was in college. My thought was that if you could annotate something as complex as Shakespeare:
http://imgur.com/FgsyAco http://imgur.com/FgsyAco
then you could annotate legal documents, code, and other high-density texts as well.
I've long felt that existing solutions fall down in a few ways:
1. UX -- this is a HARD UX problem because you are potentially managing a lot of information on screen at once. Anybody staring at a blizzard of comments in Word or Acrobat knows how bad this can get.
2. One-to-one -- Most existing exegesis solutions like genius.com only let you mark of one portion of text for threaded commentary, which is not ideal because complex text like the above example can have multiple patterns working in it at the same time:
http://imgur.com/x6BKKQW http://imgur.com/x6BKKQW
(a crude attempt to map assonance and consonance)
Really, what a robust commentary system needs is to map many comments to many units of text, so that the same portion of text can be annotated multiply (as this solution attempts) but also so that the same comment can be used to describe multiple portions of text as well.
3. Relationships between comments -- It's great that this solution gives threaded comments as a first-class feature, but you also want to be able to group comments together in arbitrary ways and be able to show and hide them. In my examples above, there are two systems at work: the ideational similarities between words, and the patterns of assonance / consonance. You could also add additional systems on top of this: glossing what words or phrases mean (and in Shakespeare, these are often multiple), or providing meta-commentary on textual content relative to other content, or even social commentary on the commentaries. You need a way to manage hierarchies or groups of content to do this effectively. No existing solution that I am aware of attempts this.
I literally just hired somebody yesterday to start work on a text editor that attempts to resolve some of this, but it's an exceedingly hard problem to solve with technology.
- gaxun 10y ago> Really, what a robust commentary system needs is to map many comments to many units of text This is actually built into this specification. From the Web Annotation Data Model [0]: - Annotations have 0 or more Bodies. - Annotations have 1 or more Targets. So one "Annotation" object can have multiple bodies (descriptions) attached to multiple targets. > 3. Relationships between comments This sounds more like an implementation detail of a client than part of the protocol or data model put forth by the W3C group. However, I believe this can kind of be done server-side with the Web Annotation Protocol [1]'s idea of Annotation Containers. Your server can map a single annotation to multiple containers. So perhaps you have an endpoint like `http://example.com/a/` http://example.com/a/` and you want to arrange a hierarchy of comments. You could provide a filtered set of the annotations at `http://example.com/a/romeo/consonance/` http://example.com/a/romeo/consonance/`, and similar endpoints. So basically what I'm saying is it seems like the protocol here isn't going to get in your way, it's just incentive to use this particular model for storing and transferring your data. [0]: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#web-annotation-principles https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#web-annotation-princ... [1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/#container-retrieval https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/#container-retriev...
- foxhedgehog 10y agoIf the protocol supports these features, then that's great and I'd love to see it adopted.