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

Re: URGENT: bodyValue

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 11:30:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CABevsUE__it+LUwDfVbDJtWwJASXihyebaXLWfpbskTStCk7vA@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>
Thanks Kanzaki!

The check box doesn't seem to produce any different output for me, at least
on the first couple of images.  Could you email the AnnotationPage to the
list, and I'll add it to the test results?

Thanks again :)

Rob



On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:11 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"].
>



-- 
Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2016 19:30:57 UTC

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