Re: Specs defining Collection and Paging (former: Pagination - let's finalize the collection design (ISSUE-42))

Hi Rob,

I'm getting a 404 for that web page.

Also maybe it's my library background but the activity streams spec seems
to be conflating the notion of a collection with that of a container. Could
you possibly point me at the page that describes their use cases for
ordered "collections"? Was there a reason why the term "collection" was
preferred over that of "list" or "container"? That collections have an
order seems to be a strange conflation of *presentational information* and
*content* which HTML moved away from many, many years ago through the
advent of CSS. Of course we're probably talking about two different things
when we say "collection", so maybe I'm tilting at windmills.

With regards to edm:isGatheredInto, the domain of the predicate is any
rdfs:Resource and its range is dcmitype:Collection. While ore:proxies do
figure heavily into the EDM standard (which has the rather unenviable task
of reconciling metadata records describing resources from multiple
repositories and cultural heritage institutions), they play no role in the
EDM's collection construct. So I'm not certain what you're getting at by
bringing it up here. Could you clarify?

One of the things that has been giving me pause lately and making me
reconsider the W3's approach to the semantic web is the apparent lack of
semantics, semantic gaps, and generally overloaded semantics of many of the
standards that it intends for the semantic web. Activity Streams and
Schema.org, among others, seem to suffer from these kinds of problems.

Sorry for the distraction.

Thanks,

Jacob






_____________________________________________________
Jacob Jett
Research Assistant
Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
(217) 244-2164
jjett2@illinois.edu

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Order is something that we need for various use cases, so ActivityStreams'
> OrderedCollection fits the bill here.  And hence the massively cc'ed
> discussion about it.
>
> Given that ore:Proxies are quite a lot of overhead, especially when
> projected into JSON-LD, and one of the explicit aims is to make the JSON
> serialization easy to use, rdf:List seems like the most appropriate way.
>
> The document for pages and order that I'm going to integrate into the next
> Protocol draft is:
>   http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/paging.html
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__w3c.github.io_web-2Dannotation_protocol_paging.html&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=uL7CdN4LnLcGSre8OrU20gCxkJVMFIDbcHL_HDllk8Y&s=uhouqvMii3GOQBBMDS_Gj7RW7aslN8WbjQ7-5RuWQCE&e=>
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
>
>> Question, if collections of annotations is the goal, why not reuse the
>> Europeana Data Model's isGatheredInto predicate?
>>
>> Also, is order something that a collection has? That sounds more like a
>> list...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jacob
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________
>> Jacob Jett
>> Research Assistant
>> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
>> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
>> (217) 244-2164
>> jjett2@illinois.edu
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> The Annotation WG will not use the Triple Pattern Fragments as there's
>>> nothing normative to refer to.  We can refer to the OrderedCollections in
>>> the Social Web WG, but not a similar construct in Hydra.  Otherwise we
>>> could have simply referred to the outcome of the Open Annotation CG and
>>> called it a day :)
>>>
>>> Some additional feedback, as per discussions regarding the
>>> OrderedCollection, we consider that first and last are properties of the
>>> Collection or List-Of-Views, not the individual page/view.
>>>
>>> Without the context, it is impossible to know whether the array for
>>> "member" is an rdf:List or just a set of triples with the same predicate.
>>> We have requirements for per item ordering, in every page, without needing
>>> the client to re-order the items based on some property value. The
>>> construction quoted below would either:
>>>
>>> 1.  Not fulfill those requirements, if member is a partial set when
>>> retrieving each page
>>> 2.  Be incorrect, if member is a different rdf:List instance when
>>> retrieving each page
>>>
>>> So, as far as the Annotation group goes, we would not adopt that
>>> construction as it stands, regardless of the formal status of the work.
>>>
>>> Hope that helps,
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:00 AM, elf Pavlik <
>>> perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2015 10:52 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>>> > As announced, I would like to finalize the collection design as the
>>>> next
>>>> > step.  The representation of a specific view on the collection could
>>>> look somewhat
>>>> > like this:
>>>> >   {
>>>> >     "@id": "http://api.example.com/an-issue/comments
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__api.example.com_an-2Dissue_comments&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=uL7CdN4LnLcGSre8OrU20gCxkJVMFIDbcHL_HDllk8Y&s=vJdY_9IYHnvUPsM5hdEv-1kUnGBqjom-OeKSN3E-OiQ&e=>
>>>> ",
>>>> >     "@type": "Collection",
>>>> >     "member": [ ... ],
>>>> >     "view": {
>>>> >       "@id": "/an-issue/comments?page=3",
>>>> >       "@type": "PartialCollectionView",
>>>> >       "first": "/an-issue/comments",
>>>> >       "previous": "/an-issue/comments?page=2",
>>>> >       "next": "/an-issue/comments?page=4",
>>>> >       "last": "/an-issue/comments?page=498",
>>>> >     }
>>>> >   }
>>>>
>>>> Would TFP would also use paging as described here? If so, I think that
>>>> API spec(s) which belong to Social WG deliverables, as well as ones
>>>> belonging to Annotation WG deliverables could also simply build on that!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>