Re: Standards Requirements

(Please ignore this duplicate, it was a glitch in my email client)

Regards-
-Doug

On 11/27/14 2:29 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> 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 20:17:44 UTC