W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotea-dev@w3.org > January to March 2004

Fwd: Re: efficient retrieval of annotation bodies in Annotea (message 2)

From: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@annotea.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:01:22 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: public-annotea-dev@w3.org

>Delivered-To: marja@annotea.org
>X-Original-To: www-annotation@listhub.w3.org
>Delivered-To: www-annotation@listhub.w3.org
>Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:52:40 -0500 (EST)
>From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
>To: Mark Smith <mcs@pearlcrescent.com>
>Cc: www-annotation@w3.org
>Subject: Re: efficient retrieval of annotation bodies in Annotea
>Resent-From: www-annotation@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <www-annotation@w3.org> archive/latest/943
>X-Loop: www-annotation@w3.org
>Sender: www-annotation-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: www-annotation-request@w3.org
>List-Id: <www-annotation.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-annotation-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:52:50 -0500 (EST)
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on
>         mailsmtp.opentransfer.com
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
>         version=2.63
>This optimisation assumes that the server has the bodies itself. This isn't
>(in a number of the cases I have played with) a valid assumption. So while I
>have no problem with allowing a query that includes "please give me all the
>annotation metadata and bodies that you have for FOO", I think requiring it
>would seriously restrict the usefulness of the protocol.
>A simple example is to think of descriptions of images, where a user might
>make an annotation to provide an explicit linkage that can be automatically
>retrieved. This is a common accessibility use case (making an alternative
>representation available for a person who cannot clearly see or interpret the
>picture) where one might often expect to find the body of the annotation is
>an existing resource on the web, referred to rather than held by the annotea
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> >[Please accept my apologies if this has already been discussed; I did
> >not find it in the list archives.]
> >
> >I have been looking at the Annotea protocol, and it seems that one HTTP
> >GET request must be issued to retrieve each annotation body.  If a
> >client wants to retrieve the list of annotations for a page as well as
> >all of the associated bodies, it can't do so very efficiently.  Or did I
> >miss something in the spec?
> >
> >Are people open to extending the protocol to allow this kind of query?
> >If so, I'd be happy to experiment a bit and propose something concrete.
> >
> >Reference: http://www.w3.org/2002/12/AnnoteaProtocol-20021219
> >
> >--
> >Mark Smith
> >LDAP Book Information: http://www.ldapbook.com/
> >What's Next:           http://www.pearlcrescent.com/
> >
> >
>Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134 136
>SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe         fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22
>  Post:   21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
>  W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2004 16:59:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:42:12 UTC