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

Re: Pieces and parts

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 09:18:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUGsx=7vfuiHmkDme-qwut+q+MP0ZN4e8UOQRQkaLu4azg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
Cc: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Thanks Benjamin!

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>

> 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 :)


Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2015 16:18:35 UTC

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