There are also these three...very early whacks at it: https://github.com/BigBlueHat/anno-proto-coucho https://github.com/BigBlueHat/annotator-couchapp https://github.com/BigBlueHat/web-annotation-protocol-server
None of those are ready for prime time, but might be worth forking and pursuing. I think the larger question is a Web Annotation Protocol server a thing unto itself ever? or is it best mixed into an LDP server and/or ActivityStreams server--such as Sarven (CC'd) has done with https://dokie.li/ Sarven's mayktso project is an example of such a mix of "protocols": https://github.com/csarven/mayktso#about At any rate, we should decide collectively if building a some server-side foundation for annotation is part of what we want to do here. I'd personally like to see some sort of JS-based server-side code for serving annotations to (optionally) couple with our JS-based DOM-side code to enable devs to provide custom UX's on top of that. That's the dream anyhow. 😉 Cheers, Benjamin -- http://bigbluehat.com/ http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung ________________________________ From: ajs6f <aj...@apache.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 11:18 AM To: dev@annotator.incubator.apache.org Cc: Randall Leeds Subject: Re: LDP and persistence Was: introduction I added a few more LDP implementations to the list, but I didn't see any more WAP impls. I think I may be using the wrong search terms! Does anyone know of others besides MangoServer, which is the only one there? ajs6f > On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:27 PM, ajs6f <aj...@apache.org> wrote: > > I certainly agree that if we can start with WAP, we're that much further > ahead, and I'm happily looking into the example you gave on the wiki page. I > should have remembered that in order to become a W3C rec, there would have > had to be impls. > > I have no argument against AS paging (and LDP paging never made it past a > Working Group note [1]-- it didn't become part of the rec proper). I was just > trying to figure out what the boundaries are for our work. I found this in > that note [2]: > >> Clients generally have no insight into the allocation of information to >> pages, although in some cases currently defined only for LDPCs the server >> can expose its algorithm. > > which pretty much seems to exclude ordering. Of course an extension could go > beyond that, but I don't see any amazing advantage to LDP Paging that would > make us go nuts for it and try to break out of protocol for it. For anyone > who is _REALLY_ interested in this question, there's a thread [3] that goes > into considerable detail about the reasoning behind LDP Paging. > > ajs6f > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp-paging.html > [2] https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp-paging.html#ldpr-PagingIntro > [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-comments/2014Sep/0003.html > >> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:33 PM, Benjamin Young <byo...@bigbluehat.com> wrote: >> >> Great start! I added some links there. 😊 >> >> Given that Web Annotation's have their own protocol (based on LDP), I'd >> prefer we aim for that target. >> >> The LDP style paging was considered by the Working Group, but we went with >> ActivityStreams-style paging because ordering matters--see this note from >> the spec: >> "Activity Streams Collection >> [activitystreams-core<https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/#bib-activitystreams-core>] >> model is used for paging, as in-page ordering is an important requirement." >> -- see https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/#h-summary >> >> LDP's ordering, iirc, was "random" or at least didn't express explicit >> ordering, but you know more about LDP than I do. 😊 >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> -- >> >> http://bigbluehat.com/ >> >> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung >> >> ________________________________ >> From: ajs6f <aj...@apache.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 12:17 PM >> To: dev@annotator.incubator.apache.org >> Cc: Randall Leeds >> Subject: Re: LDP and persistence Was: introduction >> >> Sure-- I've made a page at: >> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-annotator/wiki/LDP-and-Web-Annotation-Protocol-Implementations >> >> although I don't know that there's really a wrong way for us to go about >> this! :grin: >> >> I'm afraid that I'm not aware of any other Web Annotation Protocol-specific >> impls, but that says more about my ignorance than anything else. >> >> On paging in particular, are we committed to building on the Activity >> Streams model via >> >> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/#annotation-pages >> >> ? >> >> ajs6f >> >>> On Jan 23, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Benjamin Young <byo...@bigbluehat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Agreed! Perhaps we could start by building a list on the wiki (and later >>> the site) of LDP and Web Annotation Protocol (specific) implementations. >>> >>> Once we have that, I'd reckon some browser-side client plumbing would be in >>> order (i.e. annotation service discovery, code to get a collection of >>> annotations based on the current documents URI, pagination across >>> annotation collections, etc). >>> >>> Sound about right? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> http://bigbluehat.com/ >>> >>> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Randall Leeds <rand...@apache.org> >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 1:16 PM >>> To: dev@annotator.incubator.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: LDP and persistence Was: introduction >>> >>> This makes good sense to me. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 09:59 ajs6f <aj...@apache.org wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, Benjamin-- >>>> >>>> No problem. I'm obviously not all that good about quick response myself! :0 >>>> >>>> It seems to me that these two things (the relationship to LDP and the >>>> question of backend persistence) could be connected: is it not possible to >>>> choose LDP for the data storage abstraction layer for Annotator? Of course, >>>> we would probably have to pick at least one LDP implementation to package >>>> with Annotator as a choice for those who "choose not to choose" for >>>> themselves or for people who are just interested in playing with web >>>> annotation and don't need to think about production deployment. >>>> >>>> If we chose LDP for the abstraction layer, then we could also choose a >>>> default component that can use whatever we think are appropriate concrete >>>> forms for persistence. (Benjamin Goering mentioned using widely-available >>>> RDBMSes, for example, which is certainly a good and common pattern, and >>>> plenty of LDP impls can use them.) >>>> >>>> One reason I suggest this: if we choose for a lower-level persistence >>>> abstraction (e.g. working directly against an SQL backend) and given that >>>> the Web Annotation protocol extends LDP, we will find ourselves rewriting >>>> code that LDP implementations have already written and which already is >>>> tested in use. >>>> >>>> ajs6f >>>> >>>>> On Jan 15, 2019, at 9:55 AM, Benjamin Young <byo...@bigbluehat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hey Adam! >>>>> >>>>> First, huge apologies for letting this slip through the cracks caused by >>>> all the holiday-ing (at least for me ;) )! >>>>> >>>>> Second, you're spot on about Web Annotation Protocol being essentially >>>> an extension of the Linked Data Platform (LDP) [1] spec. Also, Web >>>> Annotations, being based on JSON-LD, can be stored into any triple store. >>>> The server-side implementations tested by the W3C so far [2] have used the >>>> filesystem, a relational database, or a JSON-friendly NoSQL database >>>> (MongoDB, Apache CouchDB, PouchDB, etc). >>>>> >>>>> Honestly, database selection is one of the things that has tripped me up >>>> in contributing a server implementation. I want it to be database/store >>>> agnostic, ideally, but that comes with it's own "tyranny of choice" among >>>> data storage abstraction layers. 😋 >>>>> >>>>> In the end, it's up to the group to decide what to build and what to >>>> build on and in what language...etc. >>>>> >>>>> Most of the work has gone into the DOM connective tissue code, and I've >>>> brought over some of the Web Annotation Data Model validation code [3]. >>>> There's still more to do on all fronts. 😊 >>>>> >>>>> Let me know if you have thoughts on the plans here. Your experience with >>>> Jena (both as a project and a tool) would be very helpful! >>>>> >>>>> Cheers! >>>>> Benjamin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/ >>>>> [2] >>>> https://github.com/w3c/test-results/tree/gh-pages/annotation-protocol#index-of-implementations-tested >>>>> [3] >>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-annotator/blob/master/test/data-model.mjs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> http://bigbluehat.com/ >>>>> >>>>> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: ajs6f <aj...@apache.org> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 4:14 PM >>>>> To: dev@annotator.incubator.apache.org >>>>> Subject: introduction >>>>> >>>>> Hi, Annnotator folks! >>>>> >>>>> My name is Adam Soroka and I'm a committer for Apache Jena. For a day >>>> job I work at the Smithsonian Institution and I've been interested in >>>> semantic technology for quite a while in the context of so-called cultural >>>> heritage. I watched the W3C Web Annotation WG with interest and I was happy >>>> to see extensions developed for the International Image Interoperability >>>> Framework [1]. >>>>> >>>>> I'm still a little uncertain about the scope of the Annotator project. >>>> It seems to include a node.js server component to store and manage >>>> annotations as well as browser-side tooling. I was under the impression >>>> (very likely wrong!) that annotations, as RDF graphs, could be stored in >>>> anything that can store RDF (triplestores, etc.) and that in particular, >>>> LDP implementations should be able to support the annotation protocol >>>> (almost?) directly. Is this wrong? Are there special requirements on >>>> annotation servers that make it appropriate to use a special-purpose part? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for any clarification/info/advice! >>>>> >>>>> ajs6f >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://iiif.io/api/annex/openannotation/index.html >>>> >>>> >> >
