W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > July 2015

Re: [web-annotation] Annotation Lists

From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 05:02:17 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-119434513-1436331736-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

> On 07 Jul 2015, at 18:03 , Rob Sanderson <notifications@github.com> 
wrote:
> 
> Several downstream systems have a need for lists of annotations, 
including EPUB [1] and IIIF [2]. For search, we need to have a list of
 annotations for the result set of applying the query to the set of 
annotations. Other expressed use cases are user constructed 
"playlists" of Annotations, curated distribution lists of annotations,
 and general optimization of annotation retrieval to avoid thousands 
of HTTP calls for each annotation individually.
> 
> As an initial proposal, we could use Activity-Streams's 
OrderedCollection class[3], which seems to fulfill the (implicit, to 
be expressed) requirements:
> 
> {
>   "@context": ["http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", 
"http://www.w3.org/ns/oa"],
>   "@type": "OrderedCollection",
>   "totalItems": 10,
>   "itemsPerPage": 1,
>   "next": "http://example.org/foo?page=2",
>   "self": "http://example.org/foo?page=1",
>   "startIndex": 0,
>   "orderedItems": [
>     {
>       "@type": "Annotation",
>       "motivation": "commenting",
>       "body": {"value": "I like this!"},
>       "target": "http://www.cnn.com/"
>     }
>   ]
> }
> 

I would like to understand what all these properties *mean* in this 
respect. But, first of all, I would also like to understand what we 
need in terms of functionalities before adopting a specification 
created elsewhere…

For example, the model in EPUB[1] is way simpler and clearer. Why do 
we need more than that? (Let us forget about the complexities of the 
RDF expression of lists; a JSON-LD or Turtle representation thereof 
makes this complexity hidden anyway.)

We could also consider ORE[4] although, I must admit, I do not 
remember all the details any more, but it could make it simpler. (I 
admit that using a specification developed in another WG has its 
advantages, but I would prefer to consider that on technical merit.)

Ivan

[4] http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/vocabulary


> This would be consistent with a (to-be-proposed) use of AS2.0 for 
notifications about annotation activity.
> 
> [1] http://www.idpf.org/epub/oa/#h.48f1o3s9o9hf
> [2] http://iiif.io/api/presentation/2.0/#other-content-resources
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#collections
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
> 


----
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






-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by iherman
See 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/50#issuecomment-119434513
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2015 05:02:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:37 UTC