Re: [agenda} Web Annotation WG teleconf Agenda (2014-11-12)

I think we should keep it simple and start with annotation-model, simple, clear and short enough.

are we done? :)

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Co-Chair W3C Web Annotation WG
@fjhirsch



On Nov 11, 2014, at 11:57 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Thanks for the clarifications, Ivan!
> 
> If we had one multi-part specification, we could still have multiple documents, though?
> For example, TR/CSS/ is just a table of contents... meaning we could have documents on the pattern of:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation/documentName.html
> 
> ?  Or does that imply that we'd need to take everything through in one go, rather than in pieces?
> 
> Apologies for the newbie chair questions :)
> 
> 
> Assuming that we do want different short names for every document...
> 
> I would propose to drop "web-" 
>   * it's implicit in it being a W3C spec to some degree
>   * it's not actually necessary to use the model (eg an offline epub reading system)
> 
> So, some possibilities to consider:
> 
> oa-                   # short and we already have the CG's namespace at ns/oa
> anno-               # more recognisable than just two characters
> annotation-      # full word, but similar length to web-anno-
> 
> For the current document:
> 
> -model            # too abstract ?
> -syntax           # too concrete ?
> -structure       # no precedent ?
> -dm                # ala prov-dm
> -ontology       # non rdf people run screaming
> 
> 
> 
> then for the HTTP client/server interaction:
> 
> -protocol          # what it says on the tin :)
> -http-api           # not distinct enough?
> -server-api       # to distinguish from -client-api for the browser side stuff
> -transfer-api
> -transport-api
> -management-api  # too long?
> 
> for the client side:
> 
> -if                      # way not distinct enough ?
> -interface          # not distinct enough ?
> -client-api          # distinguish from -server-api
> -client-interface # too long ?
> -browser-api     # too specific
> 
> And for robust anchoring:
> 
> -anchor
> -anchoring
> 
> Though I would be in favor of putting this *outside* of the annotation scope, as it's something we need but isn't exclusively for us, so:
> 
> web-anchoring           # it's not every document format, just web ones
> robust-anchoring       # ... but this would be better for reading systems etc.
> 
> 
> My personal preferences for names:
> 
> annotation-model
> annotation-protocol
> annotation-interface
> web-anchoring
> 
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 11 Nov 2014, at 23:05 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <skip/>
> >
> > >> Approve shortname 'web-annotation’ (or alternative)
> > > I suggest that we come up with a more discrete shortname for each of our deliverables, since they all pertain to web annotation.
> > > Since this is specifically about the data model, maybe 'web-anno-data-model', 'web-anno-model', or 'web-anno-vocab’
> > agree, wa-model probably too close to ws*,  suggest webanno-model
> >
> > I think we need to discuss the consequences of the selection as a group.  For example, if that means we have TR/web-anno-data-model/ and TR/web-anno-vocab/ rather than (for example) TR/web-annotation/model/ , then that's pretty important.
> >
> 
> I do not think the latter works with the W3C publication rules. All documents must be under /TR/, ie, should not introduce further hierarchies. Related documents usually share part (usually the beginning) of the short name. See, for example, the RDF1.1 suite (rdf11-concepts, rdf11-model), or the XML Schema documents (xmlschema11-1, xmlschema11-2) etc. So something like web-anno-* or webanno-* is o.k., /TR/web-anno/model/ is not
> 
> > Especially as the current document contains model, vocab and serialization but we may wish to split that up in the future, or we may wish to keep it as it is.
> >
> 
> It is indeed important to have a clearer idea; that being said, these names are not cast in concrete. If the group decides, later, to introduce new documents with new short names and/or abandon/change an existing one: it is all doable.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> > Let's not be hasty :)
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > --
> > Rob Sanderson
> > Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> > Digital Library Systems and Services
> > Stanford, CA 94305
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Rob Sanderson
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305