RE: Web Annotation Protocol: Searching method

Hi Rob,

Thanks a lot for your help!

We have analysed the proposal [2] and it seems to match our needs at this moment, so we will proceed on implementing it on our Annotation Server. Regarding the actual "query" request, we chose to go with a solution that uses "q" parameters for two reasons: 1) to be similar to our other APIs, and 2) because we will use SOLR on the backend. Once the search method is published as part of the spec, we will then revise our implementation.

Btw, about the "return=representation" keywords, we are considering supporting yet another flavour beyond the oa:PreferContainedDescriptions, to allow client applications to ask for the full description of the Annotations which, in our case, may result on dereferencing some results in particular for Semantic Tags. Our interest, is to allow for lightweight clients to delegate all this effort to the server instead of implementing themselves such logic (including e.g. a caching mechanism). I imagine this requirement being also shared by others... as there been any discussion on it before?

Kind regards,
Hugo

Hugo Manguinhas
Technical R&D Coordinator

T: +31 (0)70 314 0967
M:
E: Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu
Skype: hugo.manguinhas


Be part of Europe's online cultural movement - join the Europeana Network Association: http://bit.ly/NetworkAssociation
 #AllezCulture!
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system.

________________________________
From: Robert Sanderson [azaroth42@gmail.com]
Sent: 11 October 2015 11:41
To: Hugo Manguinhas
Cc: public-openannotation; Web Annotation
Subject: Re: Web Annotation Protocol: Searching method


Hi Hugo,

I'm currently in the process of updating the annotation protocol draft [1] to set the ground work for search.  ln particular, we assessed the use of LDP Paging and found several use cases for ordering the results within a single page that are not supported by it.  Instead, we worked with the Social Web Working Group to ensure that the OrderedCollection class in ActivityStreams 2.0 would meet those needs.

The proposal [2] has not yet been integrated to the protocol document, but I expect to get to it next week.

This is also expected to inform and be informed by the IIIF search specification, currently in draft at [3].  The IIIF specification is centered on the page (or AnnotationList) rather than the collection (or Layer) but the structure and properties are the same other than the search specific properties relayed in [4].  The Web Annotation WG have not yet discussed whether an auto-complete service (similar to [5]) would be in scope or not.

Hope that helps,

Rob

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/
[2] http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/paging.html
[3] http://search.iiif.io/api/search/0.9/
[4] http://search.iiif.io/api/search/0.9/#search-specific-features
[5] http://search.iiif.io/api/search/0.9/#autocomplete


On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Hugo Manguinhas <Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu<mailto:Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu>> wrote:
Hi all,

We are currently developing at the Europeana Foundation an implementation of the recently published Web Annotation Protocol to support the backend storage of annotations coming from client applications... and we expect to have very soon a version that we can share with the community.

As one of the methods that we would like to support is the search for annotations within a container since, in our case, we expect it to detain a significantly large number of annotations.. In this regard, we were woundering if there are plans to include it soon? or if you could give us some direction on how we could best support it until it becomes part of the spec?

In particular, for the representation of search results (responses), my guess goes towards the LDP paging [1]... or do you expect something more elaborate?

Thanks!

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-paging/

Best regards,
Hugo

Hugo Manguinhas
Technical R&D Coordinator

T: +31 (0)70 314 0967<tel:%2B31%20%280%2970%20314%200967>
M:
E: Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu<mailto:Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu>
Skype: hugo.manguinhas


Become a member of Europeana Network Association and be part of Europe's online cultural movement:

<http://bit.ly/NetworkAssociation>http://bit.ly/NetworkAssociation

If you're interested in how Europeana makes Europe's culture available for all, across borders and generations and for creative re-use - follow us at #AllezCulture
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system.




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