Re: Comments on Annotea server and protocol

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:10:03PM +0200, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> As I have started to use a private instance of annotea as a basis for an
> internal project, I have several questions/comments:
> - has it been foreseen to post more than one annotation in one POST
> request? From what I've seen the current W3C Annotea implementation
> doesn't support this, nor does the protocol [1] seems to allow it (while
> it doesn't explicitely say so)

That has been discussed. This requires some discussion about how amaya
associates annotations with POSTed data. annotate does not currently
support it, but it souldn't be hard to change.
*** /tmp/AnnotationApp.pm	Fri Aug 29 11:46:43 2003
--- /tmp/AnnotationApp.pm	Fri Aug 29 11:46:43 2003
***************
*** 198,204 ****
  	my $hostableDesc = $hostQueries->[$iHostQuery];
  	if ($self->hostAndShow($rdfDB, $presenter, $rdfParser, $engine, $emulateSessionId, $hostableDesc->[0], $hostableDesc->[1])) {
  	    $found = $iHostQuery;
- 	    last;
  	}
      }
      if ($found < 0) {
--- 198,203 ----

It may not matter -- if Amaya needs to associate a POST with a
response, it can POST them one at a time. We can check it out on
iggy, the testing server.

> - from what I've seen, the W3C Team private instance of annotea doesn't
> reply with a 201 code as required by the protocol on the creation of a
> new annotation:
> cat annotation-test.rdf |POST -Sse -C dom:XXXXX -c application/xml -H
> "Content-Length:567" http://xxx.w3.org/annotations 
> replies with:
> POST http://xxx.w3.org/annotations --> 401 Authorization Required
> POST http://xxx.w3.org/annotations --> 200 OK

You need to test the latest version which is, um, 30 seconds old.
Fixed.

> Further more, the response is a text/html document, note an RDF one (but
> maybe the private instance of annotea is outdated?).

depends on the accept header. try application/rdf+xml.

> - the Annotea protocol would benefit from using RFC Keywords, I believe
> (the should/may words are used, but it's not clear if it is in that
> meaning; other assertions are made in affirmative style, and it's then
> unclear what level of requirement they impose).

you mean: "the Annotea protocol SHOULD use RFC Keywords".
makes sense to me.

> - is there any reason why this is not published as a Team submission?
> The annotea system really deserves as much visibility as possible, I
> think :)

I think it's been mentioned in late night drunken mutterings but
nothing more concrete than that. I'll bring that up, too.

> 1. http://www.w3.org/2002/12/AnnoteaProtocol-20021219
-- 
-eric

office: +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +1.857.222.5741

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 11:51:33 UTC