Re: Reply protocols

Matthew Wilson wrote:
> I think the problem is in the RDF posted. By observing Amaya, I found
> a form of RDF content which worked. It seemed to need an
> "<a:context>" describing the portion of the annotation body being
> replied to, and, strangely, to need a Dublin Core 1.0 namespace
> instead of 1.1.

Does it reject all posts containing properties (from namespaces) it does 
not know or does it only expect some properties to be present? 

> Also, in retrieving replies, the documentation shows retrieval of
> /Annotation?w3c_reply_tree=<url>, but the server seems to need
> /Annotation?w3c_annotates=<url>&w3c_replyTree=<url>.

The second one is for retrieving annotations that annotate the 
annotation <url> and replies to the annotation <url> in one request. 
w3c_reply_tree (or w3c_replyTree) does only get the replies to an 
annotation. So I'm puzzled why the server always needs both of them.

Crazy. However, I ask myself when the server code was last updated. I am 
not from the W3C, so I can not tell, but I believe the software is 
quite outdated. I recommend we stick to 
http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/User/Protocol.html
In Annozilla, the exact behaviour should be configurable on a per server 
basis in order to work with the w3c's annotea server.

Do you have any other annotea servers you can test against? My own 
server is not running right now (some library dependency problems). But 
if you want, I can get it running again next week and send you username 
and password so you can access it.

Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 11:13:41 UTC