Re: Standards Requirements

Hi, Rob–

This all seems reasonable to me.

Since the Web Annotation Data Model spec is not yet complete, and 
because it's not much different than the Open Annotation data model, it 
seems sensible to compromise by allowing annotation tools to only 
support the Open Annotation data model initially.

As you note, the timing is the issue.

Right now, in the Annotator codebase, there is code for Open Annotation 
data model ready for integration in Annotator 2.0; you know this, of 
course, since you helped write it. However, it will be a couple weeks 
before the Hypothesis folks complete the integration into Annotator 2.0, 
and a few weeks more before they complete rebasing the Hypothesis fork 
with the Annotator 2.0 code. So, while supporting the Open Annotation 
data model is a high priority, it will be several weeks before the 
version of Annotator that we're using at WebPlatform.org will support it.

We want to publish the Web Annotation Data Model spec as a first public 
working draft on 9 December, as you know.

Many of us would like to include the Annotator tool with the FPWD. Not 
only would it be easier for us to collect feedback, but it would 
illustrate and publicize the use of Web Annotations to readers. We will 
use the Annotator with other specs, so people can see it there, of 
course, but showcasing it on the FPWD of the Web Annotation WG's first 
spec has a certain aspirational and inspirational aspect.


Here's the options, as I see them:

1) Publish the Web Annotation Data Model spec as planned on 9 December, 
with the Annotator tool as it stands today.

2) Publish the Web Annotation Data Model spec as planned on 9 December, 
without the Annotator tool, and only publish a version with the 
Annotator once it supports the Open Annotation data model.

3) Delay publication of the Web Annotation Data Model spec until the 
Annotator supports the Open Annotation data model.


I personally advocate for option 1, and think option 3 is unreasonable. 
Option 2 seems like a lost opportunity to me.

If there is a desire and urgency to to have interchange with other 
annotation clients or servers before Annotator supports the OA data 
model natively, perhaps we could document Annotator's current data 
model, and offer an export/import option and a simple converter between 
the Annotator data model and OA data model; I don't know how difficult 
this would be.

What do you think?

I'm also curious what other people think, or what options they see?

Regards-
-Doug

On 11/26/14 7:11 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> My thoughts on requirements for standards support in the spec annotation
> software to be used.
>
> * We clearly must support the model and protocol coming out of the Web
> Annotation WG.  The timing is less obvious, as it has only just begun.
> Engagement and implementation early will drive the WG faster and further,
> but is reliant on the software providers' good will to track a spec that is
> certain to change.  Setting too low a bar will reduce the value as a
> demonstrator, while setting too high a bar will make it too costly to
> implement.  I think getting this right will be critical for the success of
> the experiment, and towards Annotation in the W3C moving forwards.
>
> * Supporting the Open Annotation CG specification seems like a good
> requirement as it will not change, has multiple implementations already,
> and would make transition to the WG spec very easy.  This is my suggestion
> as a way to hedge our bets on the WG spec output:  by requiring support
> here, we do not have to keep client(s) and server(s) in step with a
> changing document, but ensure that they are already at (say) 80% of the
> final solution.
>
> * As the OACG did not specify any transport protocol, following basic REST
> with the default JSON-LD context seems like the most interoperable baseline.
>
> * For extended protocol features such as search, notify, and so forth, I
> don't know of any significant prior art though would welcome references
> towards the WAWG work!
>
> Best, and happy thanksgiving,
>
> Rob
>

Received on Monday, 1 December 2014 05:31:49 UTC