Re: annotation protocol

On Nov 18, 2014 6:33 PM, "Robert Sanderson" <> wrote:
> Thanks Ben :)
>> > By "protocol", I mean:  any network interaction between systems
>> > 4).
>> The first part of this list should be out of scope for us--it's the
>> domain of content systems the Web over.
> Let me clarify further ...
> 1. We need to generate a set of use cases that should be solved by
network interactions towards the deliverable currently known as
> 2. From those use cases we then need to generate a set of requirements.
> 3. We would then compare the requirements against existing standards, or
upcoming standards that we can influence, to determine their coverage and
> 4.  We would very likely determine at this point that HTTP verbs fit the
bill entirely for features 1-4 :)
> However, there's always extras on top of the basics.  For example, the
Linked Data Platform API specifies a bunch of additional features on top of
POST/PUT/DELETE/GET + PATCH, and we should thus consider whether we simply
say "Use HTTP" or "Use LDP" or "Use HTTP/LDP in this particular way".

All great and makes good sense. :)

Thanks for the clarifications, Rob!

>> The following list is where we can bring something truly valuable to
>> the Web (or find it and make it even better). These also relate more
>> closely to our data model and it's representations and where things
>> like Linked Data Profile (LDP) could play a roll--if folks choose the
>> turtle representation.
> If you mean LDP as Linked Data Platform... ...
> I'll note (as a member of that WG) that we also now require JSON-LD in
clause :)

Yeah. It was originally called Linked Data Basic Profile back when it was
just a wee little submission doc:

I need to update my mental href's I g guess. :)

Also great to here about the JSON-LD addition. I'll dig back into it soon.

>> >   * Client searching for matching annotations
>> >   * Client browsing annotations
>> >   * Server notifying client, or another server, that an annotation was
>> > created/updated/deleted/retrieved
>> >   * Server A synchronizing annotations from Server B
> Inserting that the above is true here, but the outcome is much less
>> I have a personal interest in this stack of "edges" of the annotating
>> experience and space, and would love to contribute in exploring them.
>> I'm also new here. :)
> Everyone is new here (where here = the WG) :) And everyone is equal, the
only distinction between equals in terms of influencing the direction of
the work is the level of productive participation.
> So what I'm hearing is that you'd like to be an editor for
annotation-protocol ... :D

If that's where I can be of most service here, I'd be happy to. :)

>> Rob, what is the best way / place to participate in developing the Use
>> Cases and doing the exploration of what's needed here?
> I think we should discuss the working methodology on the call tomorrow.
> Some possibilities are:
> * Create wiki pages
> * github issues
> * github documents
> * google docs (or other) pointed to from a list in a wiki/doc/whatever
> * email to the list, transcribed to one of the above
> * other?

+1 to everything here but Google Docs.

I'll begin thinking through the various scenarios you outlined and work
then toward some potential use cases.

> Also the form of the use cases, who will work on collecting them,
distilling them to requirements and so on :)

Sounds like business as usual. :)

Thanks again for the clarity, Rob,
Developer Advocate

> Rob

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 13:22:51 UTC