Re: Call for Consensus: publish FPWD of Web Annotation Model with short name annotation-model; respond by 2 December 2014.

Dear Luc, all,

Paolo and I have worked through the comments in the review with the
following actions:

1 - 7: Agreement, editorial changes made.

8:  Agree that content negotiation should be possible, and more importantly
it is not the job of the data model/vocab/serialization to talk about
requirements at the protocol level.  annotation-protocol should determine
what is required of servers.  So we've removed the sentence that requires
JSON-LD to be available from the URI from this document.  As this is a
normative change, we're highlighting it here.

9:  Yes, an Annotation MUST have oa:Annotation as a class.  No action
taken, but we will look for ways to make the requirements like this clearer.

10 - 13: Agreement, editorial changes made.

14:  We agree that there is an issue with content negotiation, but this is
a larger modeling issue that would affect the substance of the
specification, given that we have a method to deal with conneg --
HTTPRequestState.   Also, the spec is unclear as to whether the value may
be anything other than an IANA media type ... and we can't normatively make
that requirement as we don't control dc:format? So we think we should leave
the issue of content negotation open and revisit after FPWD.

15-17: Agree, editorial changes made.

18:  This actually raises the question of normative/non-normative for all
of the appendices.  Our question is whether the Complete Example (appendix
C) should be normative or not?  It doesn't make any requirements...
Acknowledgements should clearly be non-normative.  We'll fix this when we
know what to do :)

19: Agree, editorial changes made.

20-24:  We agree there's a significant issue, and that we must resolve it
... but after FPWD.

25-26: Agree, editorial changes made.

27:  We don't think that a resource can be both a SKOS Concept and a PROV
activity at the same time.  Further discussion is needed to resolve this
one, but otherwise we propose not to change anything.

28:  The information about the robust anchors needs to be in the data
model, so it can be serialized and transferred between systems, so the
client can use it to discover the right anchoring point ... so yes it does
belong in this document.


Thanks for the thorough review! :)

Rob & Paolo


On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
wrote:

>
> Hi Frederick, all,
>
> Thanks to the editors for putting this document together. As far as a FPWD
> goes, it
> looks in good shape already.
>
> I have reviewed part of this specification, and produced a list of
> comments/remarks/suggestions (see attachment). They are ordered
> according to their occurrences in the document, thus, mixing minor and
> more important issues.  If my comments are unclear, apologies, don't
> hesitate to ask for clarifications.
>
> I don't expect all issues can be addressed before publishing
> FPWD. However, it would be good, for those that are a bit more
> fundamental, if a NOTE was inserted in the document indicating that an
> issue needs to be investigated.  This would make it clear to the
> potential reader about the work in progress nature of the
> specification.
>
> Given this caveat, I am happy with going ahead with publication of
> FPWD.
>
> Regards,
> Luc
>
>
>
> On 17/11/2014 14:35, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
>
>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC)  to publish a First Public Working
>> Draft (FPWD) of the ‘Web Annotation Data Model’ produced by the Annotation
>> Working Group, and adopting the short name of “annotation-model” for this
>> specification [1]
>>
>> The publication draft is here: http://w3c.github.io/web-
>> annotation/model_fpwd/static.html
>>
>> Please review and note any concerns on the public list (
>> public-annotation @ w3.org ). This CfC ends in two weeks, Tuesday  2
>> December 2014.
>>
>> Please note that a FPWD is just that, a first public draft, so it need
>> not be perfect and subsequent change is possible; publishing this draft
>> should give it further review and attention.
>>
>> Please respond to this CfC (even a +1 is useful). Silence will be
>> considered agreement. The anticipated publication date is 14 December.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> regards, Frederick and Rob
>>
>> Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
>> Rob Sanderson, Stanford
>> Co-Chairs W3C Web Annotation WG
>>
>> [1] please note those on the teleconference 12 November agreed to this
>> short name: http://www.w3.org/2014/11/12-annotation-minutes.html#item04
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Head of the Web and Internet Science Group
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          twitter: @lucmoreau
> Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK           http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Technology Collaboration Facilitator
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305