Re: Reply protocols

Urs Holzer wrote:
> Hi Matthew
> 
>>    I'm finally getting round to implementing the Reply protocols in
>> Annozilla, and I'm having a few problems. One is that Amaya seems to
>> be pretty crash-happy at the moment, but I suppose that's best for
>> another list.
> 
> Amaya has always been like this ;-)
> As far as I know, there is still a problem with Annotations in Amaya. It 
> crashes at the next http request after loading Annotations. :-(

I found an earlier version (around 8.5 I think) which seemed to work OK.

>>    Anyway, looking at
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/12/AnnoteaProtocol-20021219#ReplyProtocol I
>> find a few typos.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> 3. Figure 3.3 specifies the query parameter as "w3c_reply_tree",
>> where "w3c_replyTree" seems to be what is implemented.
> 
> Good you mention that. In my own server software I implemented 
> w3c_reply_tree. It seems I have to accept w3c_replyTree too.
> 
>> With these corrected, I'm trying to perform a simple POST, containing
>> more or less the same content as the sample, but I don't get the
>> expected response back. If I add "Accept: text/rdf" to the request,
>> then the response I get is a 404 error with
>> [...]
> 
> Does application/rdf+xml or application/xml work? The latter is actually 
> the Content-type the server uses in it's replies in the examples in the 
> document you mentioned.
> If this solves the problem, the server should better answer with "not 
> acceptable" rather than 404.

I think the problem is in the RDF posted. By observing Amaya, I found a 
form of RDF content which worked. It seemed to need an "<a:context>" 
describing the portion of the annotation body being replied to, and, 
strangely, to need a Dublin Core 1.0 namespace instead of 1.1.

Also, in retrieving replies, the documentation shows retrieval of 
/Annotation?w3c_reply_tree=<url>, but the server seems to need 
/Annotation?w3c_annotates=<url>&w3c_replyTree=<url>.

Mattthew

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 19:37:45 UTC