please feel free to point us to standards that you would like us to consider. we are really attempting to make this insanely simple by literally just having a triple of items to store (namespace, key, value) -- so, we are just really talking about representation, i assume.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:09 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- "Jud" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Apr 14, 5:05 pm, James Teters <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Any ideas on size limitations or restrictions for this meta data? > > good question; I have the same one. > > > > simple math based on average tweet status byte size (of status > > structure coming through the streaming or REST interface) tells us > > that it wouldn't take much being jammed into the annotation's field > > to > > double that size. what status size increase is Twitter's > > infrastructure ready/willing to tolerate? > > > > it seems to me that a few things are NOT candidates for the > > annotations field(s): > > - void * (for you old schoolers on the list) > > - media who's original native format is binary (e.g. photos/videos) > > > > annotations will need limitations like: > > - overall size > > - if key/value pairs become the model... they'll need individual size > > limitations (for name and value) > > - max number of pairs > > - etc. > > > > the whole thing feels driven by the answer to the original "size" > > question. > > > > another question would be whether or not the tweet originator can > > remove annotations that others put on their tweet? I'd assume that > > I'd > > have control over my original tweet in that manner (e.g. "notes" > > functionality on Flickr) > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject. > > In addition to size constraints, I'd like to *strongly* suggest that > wherever possible, annotations use *existing* open standards! Please, let's > not "reinvent the semantic web", even if we can. ;-) > -- Raffi Krikorian Twitter Platform Team http://twitter.com/raffi
