Re: open annotation / media fragments

On 11 okt 2009, at 13:36, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

>> I wonder whether this class of problems fits in the scope of the  
>> Media
>> Fragment work, and if so, whether it is something that you would be  
>> willing
>> to further discuss and maybe even take on board. It goes without  
>> saying that
>> we would be very happy to provide help if that were deemed  
>> appropriate
>> and/or welcome.
>
> Honestly: I didn't quite understand what technology he wants to
> integrate. Is it reference files that can point to arbitrary segments?
> Is it non-square regions? Is it slices/views of scientific datasets,
> or regions in a 3D resource? I think all of these require different
> solutions. I cannot really see that they are part of the same "class
> of problems" and solvable with the same approach. Or does anyone see a
> way?


I _think_ what he wants is a unified scheme (from a user point of  
view) to specify fragments.

And, actually, I had already started drafting a reply that I think  
this could be worthwhile with some ideas on how to implement this,  
when I realised that it's indeed completely out of scope for MFWG.

While we could define some sort of an extension scheme to our  
fragments this doesn't really buy anyone anything. There's no use  
sending these to servers, so we could only talk about the URL schemes  
anyway, and in the URL scheme space it's really only the four name/ 
value pairs we've defined that we care about.

I think the OP should go about it the other way around: define his own  
Open Annotation Fragment Identifier, and in there state that any MFWG  
fragment is automatically an OAFI fragment identifier. He would then  
only have to define the meaning of his own name/value pairs and the  
interaction between those and ours.
--
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma  
Goldman