I read through Dan Doherty’s annotated bibliography, which similar to mine, dealt with the problem of fossil fuel use and an increasing need for renewable energy sources. While my articles focused on transportation, Dan’s focused on infrastructure. A notable difference in our problem statements though was that he focused mostly on the solutions to creating greener solutions for cities, while I focused more on targeting the problems that needed to be addressed.
Looking at the XML markup for our annotations, we both used the same general structure of background, summary, and relevance for our 3 tags dividing up information. A notable difference between one tag-use though is summary; I used it once per annotation to encompass a major point of the article, whereas Dan used it several times to further break up key points in his articles. With this added degree of specificity, he also further categorized his summaries as general, interpretation, and approach, while mine were mostly general statements.
After viewing Dan’s article, I view my article as more concise but maybe too brief in areas. It brings back the question of balancing conciseness with adequate support for an argument. I do not believe one way is more correct than the other, but that instead it comes down to purpose and target audience of the annotations. One thing I would potentially change about my annotation though would be lengthening some summaries beyond a general statement to give the reader a more well-rounded idea about the articles.
