Re: disregard previous

> From w3c-collab-annotation-request@w3.org Wed Oct 18 22:00 PDT 1995
> My last message was sent in error. Please disregard
> and consider Wayne's backward link example as an
> answer to the last question in the message I sent
> before the previous one.
> Indeed, we can imagine a service which collects these backward links
> in a single annotation set. On average we would then have maybe 20
> annotations per page, but up to 4000 (which then poses some user
> interface problems). Such a set would contain a huge number of
> annotations, although it is not clear whether the request load on this
> set would be equally gigantic since for this kind of information
> people are probably more likely to do inspection requests in specific
> cases rather than have it turned on all the time (the latter ones will
> cause the request traffic on the web in general go up by a constant
> factor of some order like 10, 15(?)).  Cheers, - Martin

For me, the most interesting number is the total number of target
URL's in an annotation set.  For the back-link scenerio, this is
roughly equal to the total number of static documents published
to the public web (i.e. many millions now, and likely many billions
or trillions in the not too distant future.)

For http://www.yahoo.com/, I suspect it already has 10's of thousands
of back-links.  While it might be amusing to stuff thousands of
hypertext back-links into a web browser (serious indigestion :-)
an annotation that says:

   There are <A HRef="http://www.backlink.net/http://www.yahoo.com/">
   123,456 back-links</A> to this document.

would be sufficient.  The 123,456 back-links could be organized in
groups of 100 or so back on www.backlink.net.

Again, as I said in the orginal back-link scenerio, I think we should
agree that supporting billions of annotation set entries should *not*
be our goal.  Scenerios are extremely helpful in getting people to
come to a common agreement about the scope of the problem they are
trying to solve.  The back-link scenerio is probably not realistic
enough to be worth seriously persuing.