Re: Annotation protocol (creating a new annotation)

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:

> on server   xyz.org     there is resource R:  http:/
> www.xyz.org/resources/resourceR
>
> On MY server:   http://www.ray.org/
>
> I create a review of resource R:
> http://www.ray.org/reviews/reviewOfResourceR
>
>
>
> I create an annotation:
>
> <http://www.ray.org/annotations/annotationForTheReviewOfResourceR>   a
> oa:Annotation ;
>
>                 oa:hasBody                        <
> http://www.ray.org/reviews/reviewOfResourceR>  ;
>
>                 oa:hasTarget                      < http:/
> www.xyz.org/resources/resourceR> .
>

Yup all good so far!



> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/   says
>
> *“3.2.1 Create a New Annotation*
>
> New Annotations are created by posting the JSON-LD serialization to an
> Annotation Container.”
>
> Annotation container where?  On  which server,  xyz or ray?   I assume
> “ray” because that’s my server so I know where the annotation container is,
> while I have no idea where the container is on xyz.
>

This is the note in 3.1.1 about discovery.
http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/#containers-for-annotations

LDP does not define any discovery mechanisms at all for containers, just
the notion that if you GET a container, it will tell you that it is one.
This leads to the "body" and "other" container URIs having to be at
pre-defined locations, despite the intended opacity of URIs.

There are various directions that we could take which would be good to
discuss, including:

* Link headers/elements, with a new rel type to point to annotation
services such as in 3.1.1, there given the URI
http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#annotation-service

* .well-known URIs following RFC 5785

* Adding triples to the annotation to reference the containers

* Ruling it out of scope (which I would personally find sad)

* Other suggestions?



>  My question is, how is server xyz made aware of the existence of this
> annotation?   Either I’m missing something, or the document hasn’t gotten
> that far yet.  If it’s the latter, fine, I just want to be sure I’m not
> missing something.
>

It hasn't gotten that far yet.  That would come under the activity streams
section in 3.4, which I haven't written yet but have some long flights to
work on it this week :)

Hopefully we can avoid inventing anything here, and will take a closer look
at the pingback system that Stian references.

Rob

-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305