Re: Reply protocols

Urs Holzer wrote:
> 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? 

I'm not sure. It seems to accept a post with DC1.1, but not to retrieve 
it again.

>> 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 quite outdated.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

I tend to treat the W3C Server and Amaya as a reference implementation.

> In Annozilla, the exact behaviour should be configurable on a per server 
> basis in order to work with the w3c's annotea server.

That sounds like too much of an effort to put on the user, to expect 
them to know the exact behaviour of the server they're using.

Matthew

Received on Saturday, 12 January 2008 16:32:58 UTC