- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 09:18:07 -0700
- To: Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
- Cc: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABevsUGsx=7vfuiHmkDme-qwut+q+MP0ZN4e8UOQRQkaLu4azg@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Benjamin! On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is> wrote: > 0. a data format > - check! ;) > Or even: A data model (check) and one or more serializations of it (check) > 1. a feed format > - for more than one annotation > - we MAY have this in the form of the container docs from the protocol > Or as:OrderedCollection. Ivan also suggested ore:Aggregation (which I'm happy to discuss, as being somewhat responsible/to blame for it) Regardless, yes. A question is to whether it should live in the model or the protocol or both. > 2. a discovery mechanism > - "I'm at this URL, are there annotations (on this server, other > servers, etc)?" > Yep. Attempted in the protocol at the moment, further suggestions for how to do it very welcome. Not sure whether you bundle search under this heading or not? > 3. a notification system > - "I made an annotation on this URL, how do I let it (it's author, > publisher, CMS, etc) know that I did that." > Yep. AS as the model seems appropriate, but we still need a transport mechanism, and potentially a subscription system. > 4. a publishing system--which is mostly (afaik) what's being defined in > the protocol spec > - "I have annotations, and I want to write them into an annotation > system" > Yup, as you note, what we have as the focus of protocol now. If that list (or one like it) makes sense to everyone, I think it would be > prudent for us to begin collecting information (on the wiki, presumably) > around each of those things and begin spec-ing or explaining how they might > (should or could) be used for annotation. > My sense is that we've got #0 and #4 in some state of completion or > progression, but they're floating heads without the rest of these > components and stories. I.e. we've got enough spec'ed to make loverly > matching silos, but not enough spec'ed to make them work together across > the Web. > Agreed :) R -- Rob Sanderson Information Standards Advocate Digital Library Systems and Services Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2015 16:18:35 UTC