Re: SoLiD, and LDP dependency

It is precisely and intentionally R and CUD for Annotations, as the first
step on the critical path towards all of the components needed to support
the interactions from Doug's ecosystem diagram :)

Rob

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Marks <kevinmarks@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305