Implementations in vocabularies (was RE: Personalization TF Call Today Monday 7/9/18)

Responding briefly to the first agendum:

From: Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>

1. We would like to take a first pass at the implementations in vocabularies and check we have all the information we need to move forward. See the comparison document<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fpersonalization-semantics%2Fwiki%2FComparison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cc525f99f19f2464fd50708d5e5a650ca%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636667424844596180&sdata=IhRgVnPWVZBN622v0q5q98gzsKSNcsXwHcbHIl6CI%2BI%3D&reserved=0> Micheal started and we are all asked to comment and see what may be missing.



[Jason] The only omission that immediately comes to mind is Web Annotation. The other implementation languages all assume that the metadata are included in the markup of the web page, but Web Annotation does not. A tool (e.g., custom user agent, proxy, browser extension) could maintain a list of trusted annotation providers, and match each page that the user accesses with a list of URIs of pages for which annotations are available.

I don’t know how strong a use case this is, but it shouldn’t be overlooked altogether either.


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________