Re: Search requirements

Thanks Ivan, Frederick!

I already had language of body in the list, though I'm reminded that we
could determine expected behavior for missing values (eg matches all,
matches none, server provided default, specification provided default)

And for target domain, we could define wildcard or truncation requirements
(eg target domain is *://target.domain/* search on the target URI) but
perhaps just domain as a separate search type would be easier to support.

Rob




On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote:

> [not as chair]
>
> Earlier I suggested that search by target domain (and possibility also
> target domain + partial path match )
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
>
> www.fjhirsch.com
> @fjhirsch
>
> > On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > To make progress on the search part of protocol, some proposed types of
> search that should be supported:
> >
> > Search by:
> >
> > * exact target URI
> > * ... where the target URI might be in the hasSource of a
> SpecificResource
> > * ... ignoring fragments
> >
> > * exact body URI
> > * ... where the body URI might be in hasSource of a SpecificResource
> > * ... or in foaf:page / skos:exactMatch of a SemanticTag
> > * ... ignoring fragments
> > * class of body (Tag, SemTag, Text, ...)
> > * exact body content
> > * keyword(s) in body content
> > * phrase in body content
> > * language of body content
> > * format of body content
> >
> > * annotator URI
> > * annotation's date
> > * motivation
> >
> > Ordered By:
> >
> > * Date created/modified
> > * Position in target resource (e.g. first annotations first)
> > * Relevance to the query
> >
> >
> > Am I missing anything?
> >
> > --
> > Rob Sanderson
> > Information Standards Advocate
> > Digital Library Systems and Services
> > Stanford, CA 94305
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305