Re: Single implementation, multiple annotations (model testing)

Thanks for the clarification.  And oh well.

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu> wrote:

> Section 5 of the data model does accommodate a Annotation Collection with
> an Embedded Page (which can contain annotations), so in theory there is a
> structure that could ship multiple annotations. But the Collection+Page
> approach will not be implemented by all annotation clients and is itself
> optional – i.e., you can have an annotation Collection that contains no
> annotations, simply points at the first page of annotations in the
> collection which then has the actual annotations as part of an items array.
>
>
>
> In any event the tests and assertions covering sections 1-4 of the model
> as written are not designed to test / validate multiple annotations at
> once.  These assertions could of course be referenced by schemas that are
> designed to test / validate pages of annotations. This would not be all
> that difficult, but as mentioned above would require implementers not
> implementing section 5 of the model to manually wrap their annotations
> within annotation page structure, which itself has 8 potential keys. Seems
> like it would greatly reduce those interested in implementation testing and
> introduce opportunities for errors which would obscure actual counts of
> implementations of model features from sections 1-4.
>
>
>
> As configured now, if you paste multiple annotations concatenated together
> into the text box for a test, the tests basically refuse to run.
>
>
>
> If you wrap the multiple annotations within some array (e.g., "allOf"),
> the tests run but you fail all of the implementation check tests and only
> many of the validation test assertions – you pass some of the value
> validation assertions (based on the check not finding the key associated
> with the value validation rule, and therefore not having anything to check
> the rule against).
>
>
>
> So I think we have to live with multiple submittals from a single
> implementation when that implementation allows for creation of different
> kinds of annotations each kind of which implements different parts of the
> model.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim Cole
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Shane McCarron [mailto:shane@spec-ops.io]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 08, 2016 9:21 AM
> *To:* Cole, Timothy W <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
> *Cc:* W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Single implementation, multiple annotations (model testing)
>
>
>
> It makes sense, and I think that is fine as long as we add entries to the
> README.md index to explain what each subcode means.
>
>
>
> Alternately, I would be interested in seeing what happens if multiple
> annotations, each with a variation as you mentioned, are included in a
> single message.  I think that the data model accomodates this.  If it were
> done that way, would the test just "pass" for all of the various features ?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Cole, Timothy W <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Shane-
>
>
>
> It is commonplace for a single annotation client to generate multiple
> kinds of annotations. Each kind of annotation from a given implementation
> may implement different features of the model. So to capture this
> information, an implementer will need to run multiple annotations through
> our test suite. As best I can tell this means multiple test results
> reports, each of which will need to be submitted to
> http://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-model/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__w3c.github.io_test-2Dresults_annotation-2Dmodel_&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=zjI0r-H6xRs5fYf2_jJkju6US9ijk0nLw4ns2nuwU2k&m=JLPdicLD9KHKeRaXOmPVGLZIjaw4YTYw0VIWY-SQ8dU&s=ZZbBLyn-POWL51Z3RfsVMP304FjfV0DZ9M67_PNxH2M&e=> each
> resulting in a separate column in the all.html report.
>
>
>
> First, is my understanding corrrect, or is there some way to combine test
> result reports?
>
>
>
> If my understanding is correct, is it therefore appropriate to use the
> same 2 letter prefix (representing implementation), and then label each
> report with its own 2-digit number? So for Janina's emblem annotation
> client which implements 3 kinds of annotations, she would have EB01, EB02,
> EB03.  EB01 might implement a embedded textual body, while EB02 might
> implement an external Web resource as body, and so on.
>
>
>
> Does this make sense?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Tim Cole
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Shane McCarron
>
> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
>



-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops