W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > November 2016

Re: URGENT: bodyValue

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:54:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CABevsUFLWGfK49BHVRwu4L7kPynY2a6SZVi+9kDKp_TQG49dFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
Ahha!  That's wonderful, thank you :)
I've done a report for you, from the first annotation in the page you
linked to.

The pull request to add it is here:
https://github.com/w3c/test-results/pull/66

If you have time, you might consider using the Collection/Page pattern for
the list of annotations, instead of the array in @graph?
(see:  https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#collections)


Of course, now I need to put all the text back where it was in the
specifications ...

Rob



On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:31 PM, KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> My Image Annotator[1] uses bodyValue. Though it is not a complete
> implementation of Web Annotations, would it help if I submit a report
> this week end ?
>
> I have no experience to test and write an implementation report. If
> you think it helps, tell me what is the minimum requirement as a
> report.
>
> regards,
>
> [1] http://www.kanzaki.com/works/2016/pub/image-annotator
>
> 2016-11-12 5:51 GMT+09:00 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
> > This isn't our documented exit criteria:-(
> >
> > Ivan
> >
> > ----
> > Ivan Herman
> > +31 641044153
> >
> > (Written on my mobile. Excuses for brevity and frequent misspellings...)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11 Nov 2016, at 21:41, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:
> >
> > wait wait wait....
> >
> > Liam said "If it is optional, isn't one implementation enough?"
> >
> > Umm.... maybe?  Can someone check on that?
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Liam,
> >>
> >> we do plan to publish a revised CR...
> >>
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Ivan Herman
> >> +31 641044153
> >>
> >> (Written on my mobile. Excuses for brevity and frequent misspellings...)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On 11 Nov 2016, at 20:48, Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 10:02 -0800, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> >> >> One of our exit criteria is:
> >> >>
> >> >>     The bodyValue property of an Annotation.
> >> >>
> >> >> However according to the report (
> >> >> http://td.spec-ops.io/test-results/annotation-model/all.html), we
> >> >> have only
> >> >> one implementation of bodyValue (EF).  It's 1:4 in the annotation
> >> >> optionals
> >> >> section.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't believe we'll get a second implementation of it, so do we:
> >> >>
> >> >> * Just remove the exit criterion, as it's an optional feature anyway
> >> >
> >> > That sounds like a substantive change, so you could publish a new
> LCCR.
> >> >
> >> > But, if it's an optional feature, isn't one implementation enough?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Shane McCarron
> > Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
>
>
>
> --
> @prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig#> . <> :from [:name
> "KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@gmail.com"].
>



-- 
Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2016 01:55:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:50 UTC