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

Re: URGENT: bodyValue

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 06:58:38 -0600
Message-ID: <CAJdbnODKBau3Tb4KXSaKEvjLsA1Mh5zm9PqUtZr_4oiwUDL_ew@mail.gmail.com>
To: KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
I integrated the PR with the report at [1].  I removed the results for the
collection tests since they were 1) the only results we had and 2) were all
fails on parsing the input which implies none was supplied or it was
malformed JSON.

[1] https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-model/all.html

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:11 PM, KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > 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
>
> Ah, thanks!
>
>
> > 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)
>
> I've added a check box to output AnnotationPage/items instead of
> @graph (I don't like to use rdf:List, so default is @graph). My tool
> has no good place to use AnnotationCollection ...
>
> cheers,
>
>
> 2016-11-12 10:54 GMT+09:00 Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>:
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> @prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig#> . <> :from [:name
> "KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@gmail.com"].
>



-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2016 12:59:39 UTC

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