We acknowledge that our online materials are pretty scattered and poorly maintained. There isn’t enough progress to bootstrap ourselves, while on the other hand quite some improvements were made. Frode Hegland requests that we should make even the most basic writing, publication, retrieval and reading of a piece of text possible. Stephan Kreutzer mentions that there’s the Journal on WordPress with blog posts and glossary, and it’s also the only officially mandated material collection to work on.
Marc-Anoine Parent: There’s no point in glossary without getting glossary data from multiple sources. Furthermore, we should separate widget and underlying library. The library should merge duplicates. The draft isn’t done yet, as the issue of ontologies is complex. I added “association” to the data format. Do we really need peer-to-peer? Probably not?
Gyuri Lajos: I’m biased towards the peer-to-peer web idea. That’ll be powerful for working on things in real-time.
Marc-Antoine: If hyperglossary-aware WordPress servers can talk to each other, there’s no need for peer-to-peer between clients.
Gyuri: Agree that merging and discovery should be on the server, on the concept level. Local client peer-to-peer is a matter of privacy. If there are such servers, they will blow up and get hacked.
Marc-Antoine: For me, that’s a separate issue. There’s HTTP authentication for data access. In IdeaLoom, there are permissions and restrictable read capability. External data operations will only provide data that don’t allow the identification of the user. Proper implementation of permissions is work, but not too difficult, still: not a lot of software supports it. There’s the need for permissions per field in larger data, and anonymization. Knowledge patterns still needed to be discoverable, but for Catalyst being a project funded by the EU, privacy regulations needed to be observed as well. The system calculates dynamic permission-based views on the data on the fly. API tokens have certain capabilities/permissions attached to them.
Gyuri: The data is in a graph, so there can be simplified row+column level permissions, which I’m already doing too on the fly on my uniform model. But indeed, one can’t solely rely on client peer-to-peer, merging is a good example.
Marc-Antoine: There can be an easy HTTP model, with an URI to specify the author, so that’s not necessarily identifying the user, but could be.
Gyuri: Servers are important because they can provide information about interesting data that’s not available in the immediate neighborhood.
Marc-Antoine: How can a hyperglossary-enabled server consume incoming WebAnnotations? It should have an ActivityStream inbox, but that doesn’t necessarily need to be implemented, it can also just be read from a stream. There are Hypothesis client libraries to make highlights in WordPress. What about overlapping annotations? More common: a lot of servers annotate over the same word, all making claims about the same word. That would be, let’s say, 10 annotations over the same word on the server, so a mechanism is needed to indicate to the user that those different servers have something to say about the same word.
Gyuri: I found a tweet by a Hypothesis guy in which he showed overlapping annotations. There should be a convergence between WebAnnotation and knowledge graph.
Marc-Antoine: I expect the Federation Server to look at annotations for a document and handle it.
Gyuri: Glossary capability for WordPress is already solved, look at CM Tooltip Glossary. On Slack, we need to create a #federation-server channel.
Stephan: A Federation Server, would that be any or our WordPress instance, and/or is a Federation Server part of the OHS?
Marc-Antoine: No and no.