Re: [web-annotation] How do we model "groups" in the Annotation model?

1. I don't think that we really need to model groups, but I think that
 the openid and a name for the group that is the "owner" of the 
annotations is needed. With the basic meaning that all members of that
 groups are able to edit/delete the annotation. As this is actually a 
provenance information, it should be present in the Annotation... 
until it dies (as we also have the name of mother and father on any of
 our IDs!).  
Conclusion: I agree that we need to be able to represent groups in the
 provenance information (which is now the creator field. How to model 
it correctly is another discussion)

2. I think it was made clear that ACL is needed, and that this should 
go to the protocol part of the standard. Still ... do not forget that 
a (hard-)link between the Annotation and ACL must exist explicitly! 
And this link must be bidirectional (in the sense that the ACL should 
be retrieved on the annotation-id, and the annotation should be 
retrieved by some protocol token)!
And we have also a wining standard for the ACL ... the 

For me it is a pitty that this is not implemented in the first 
version, as groups are the first thing one needs, when the amount of 
annotations is growing (think a bit of how offen @ and # are used in 
social media)

GitHub Notification of comment by gsergiu
Please view or discuss this issue at
 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2016 10:46:47 UTC