Re: Simplifying single page Collections

Guess I missed the fact that the AnnotationCollection model differed from the ActivityStreams Collection model from which it's using terms.

Conceptually, "pages" are ephemeral and rarely worth storing in a receiving knowledge graph or database--as they're someone else's temporary "construct." Meaning, I more often care that an annotation is in a certain collection than I care which "page" it's on within that collection.

Additionally, there are several potential "collected" annotation use cases where pagination isn't needed (or even wanted) and the additional indirection is just noise in both JSON and the encoded graph.

Would there be interest in changing the model to make pagination optional rather than required--if that's indeed the case? I'm also open to other readings of the spec or shared memories about why we made that decision in the WG--as I've forgotten the reasoning behind the requirement (as until recently I didn't actually think it was one ;-P ).

Cheers,
Benjamin


--

http://bigbluehat.com/

http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung

________________________________
From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 3:11 PM
To: Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>
Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Simplifying single page Collections


Hi Benjamin,

I don't follow the concern. The spec doesn't just imply you have to use an AnnotationPage, that is the model we came to. If you're not doing pagination either embedded (as per example 40) or referenced (as per example 38), then you're not consistent with the AnnotationCollection model.

Rob

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:32 AM Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com<mailto:byoung@bigbluehat.com>> wrote:
Hi all!

Recently I was building some small AnnotationCollection objects--where pagination will (deliberately) not be used. I found example 40 confusing as it seems to express a requirement that an AnnotationPage inside `first` must be used. The `items` property is only mentioned (in the Web Annotation Data Model spec) as being related to AnnotationPage. However, the ActivityStreams vocabulary we "cribbed" these terms from have different ranges defined--i.e. CollectionPage extends Collection and `items` is defined on Collection.

Consequently, I think Example 40 sends the wrong message and I'd like to improve it (at least) via errata--and eventually via a spec version bump or a CG-based revision.

Example 40: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#example-34
vs.
ActivityStreams 2.0 Collection definition and examples: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#collections

That sound OK and like the right "revisioning" approach?

Cheers,
Benjamin

--

http://bigbluehat.com/

http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung


--
Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049