- From: Kevin Marks <kevinmarks@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:19:43 -0700
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
Indeed - the Annotations spec seems like an exercise in writing a CRUD API for an LDP store rather than implementing the architecture described well in http://www.w3.org/annotation/diagrams/annotation-architecture.svg On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de> > wrote: >> >> Amy G wrote: >> > Options could be either abstracting LDP-specific parts out of the SoLiD >> > spec and considering it on that basis, or reframing it instead as a >> > layer between the Social/Federation specs (whatever they end up looking >> > like) and LDP for implementers who /do /want to use LDP as the basis for >> > their server (the latter being beyond the scope of this WG). >> >> On the other hand it is good practice while developing standards to >> avoid reinventing wheels. > > > +1 to avoiding wheel reinvention / reuse of existing work > > >> The charter of the Web Annotation WG also does not mention LDP: >> http://www.w3.org/annotation/charter/ >> >> But that WG now is creating a specification which "primarily builds upon >> the Linked Data Platform [ldp] recommendation": >> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/ > > > Yes. And some participants and external commenters have some of the same > concerns with LDP, HTTP, and JSON-LD in the Annotation context as well. > > For example: > * https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/51 (Should we avoid > constraining HTTP at all?) > * https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/34 (Is Turtle support > really required? Really?) > * https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/52 (Should we avoid > constraining JSON-LD at all?) > > Having a joint understanding of the benefits and disadvantages would be > great to help both WGs come to consensus individually and, preferably, > together :) > > Thanks! > > Rob > > -- > Rob Sanderson > Information Standards Advocate > Digital Library Systems and Services > Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Friday, 24 July 2015 18:20:23 UTC