Re: how stable is this?

Dear Vladimir,

We're confident that the core specification's structure is sufficiently
stable to go ahead and start implementing and using it now. Which is not to
say that there will be no changes. The model is open for public feedback
and, given the increasing interest for sharing annotation,  new use
cases/requirements are constantly coming in engaging the community in
discussions around the current architecture. However, given our experience,
we would be surprised if anything changes to be incompatible with the
current specification. For example, further specification of State for
content negotiation and other HTTP headers (as per Tim Cole's email) may
need to go into the core.

The extension document is meant to be an incubator for new features,
intentionally, less stable.  For example consider the named graph versus
structured body in the annotation graph discussion and whether SVGSelector
should be a valid SVG document or just a standalone element. This
core/extension split allows us to meaningfully engage in these discussions,
but without fear of breaking the fundamental architectures that people are
building.

Paolo & Rob

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Vladimir Alexiev <vladimir@sirma.bg> wrote:

> Hi folks!
> Pleased to see the first merged AO+OAC draft.
> We're eager to update our work in ResearchSpace to use this version,
> but before we commit the resources for this:
> could someone provide any indication about its stability, and when a final
> version may be available?
>
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
http://www.paolociccarese.info/