Re: URGENT: bodyValue

> I've done a report for you, from the first annotation in the page you linked
> to.
>
> The pull request to add it is here:
> https://github.com/w3c/test-results/pull/66

Ah, thanks!


> If you have time, you might consider using the Collection/Page pattern for
> the list of annotations, instead of the array in @graph?
> (see:  https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#collections)

I've added a check box to output AnnotationPage/items instead of
@graph (I don't like to use rdf:List, so default is @graph). My tool
has no good place to use AnnotationCollection ...

cheers,


2016-11-12 10:54 GMT+09:00 Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>:
>
> Ahha!  That's wonderful, thank you :)
> I've done a report for you, from the first annotation in the page you linked
> to.
>
> The pull request to add it is here:
> https://github.com/w3c/test-results/pull/66
>
> If you have time, you might consider using the Collection/Page pattern for
> the list of annotations, instead of the array in @graph?
> (see:  https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#collections)
>
>
> Of course, now I need to put all the text back where it was in the
> specifications ...
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:31 PM, KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> My Image Annotator[1] uses bodyValue. Though it is not a complete
>> implementation of Web Annotations, would it help if I submit a report
>> this week end ?
>>
>> I have no experience to test and write an implementation report. If
>> you think it helps, tell me what is the minimum requirement as a
>> report.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> [1] http://www.kanzaki.com/works/2016/pub/image-annotator
>>
>> 2016-11-12 5:51 GMT+09:00 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
>> > This isn't our documented exit criteria:-(
>> >
>> > Ivan
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Ivan Herman
>> > +31 641044153
>> >
>> > (Written on my mobile. Excuses for brevity and frequent misspellings...)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11 Nov 2016, at 21:41, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:
>> >
>> > wait wait wait....
>> >
>> > Liam said "If it is optional, isn't one implementation enough?"
>> >
>> > Umm.... maybe?  Can someone check on that?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Liam,
>> >>
>> >> we do plan to publish a revised CR...
>> >>
>> >> Ivan
>> >>
>> >> ----
>> >> Ivan Herman
>> >> +31 641044153
>> >>
>> >> (Written on my mobile. Excuses for brevity and frequent
>> >> misspellings...)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On 11 Nov 2016, at 20:48, Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 10:02 -0800, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> >> >> One of our exit criteria is:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     The bodyValue property of an Annotation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However according to the report (
>> >> >> http://td.spec-ops.io/test-results/annotation-model/all.html), we
>> >> >> have only
>> >> >> one implementation of bodyValue (EF).  It's 1:4 in the annotation
>> >> >> optionals
>> >> >> section.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't believe we'll get a second implementation of it, so do we:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * Just remove the exit criterion, as it's an optional feature anyway
>> >> >
>> >> > That sounds like a substantive change, so you could publish a new
>> >> > LCCR.
>> >> >
>> >> > But, if it's an optional feature, isn't one implementation enough?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Shane McCarron
>> > Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> @prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig#> . <> :from [:name
>> "KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@gmail.com"].
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Semantic Architect
> The Getty Trust
> Los Angeles, CA 90049



-- 
@prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig#> . <> :from [:name
"KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@gmail.com"].

Received on Saturday, 12 November 2016 03:11:52 UTC