2020-12-08 23:25

Define user-generated content comments

From the discussion in #53 an important side-track has spun up:

Also, comments (which you have in content) are a completely separate thing (aka neither content nor asset) that I am working to define (as part of the Collaboration pieces of ACP). A comment (not unlike a layer or artboard) is a container for content/assets, not a type of either. FYI: The basis for the model for comment is https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/ - the W3C standard model for annotations/comments on which the ACP commenting system (aka RedHawk) is based. —

This is coming just at the right time, because the type of comment that I had in mind when I suggested /content/usergenerated-comment.schema.json is a type of user generated content that you would make as a reader in response to a blog post or facebook post. (the stuff that people refer to when they say "always skip the comments")

The type of comment that seems to have in mind is more an editorial comment that is part of the production of an asset (but can also be applied to content, as illustrated by annotations in AEM).

It is clear that we have another example of the duality that we've already seen between 's collaboration profile and 's customer/visitor profile.

Let's identify the commonalities and differences between the approaches taken in collaboration systems and moderation systems and define a schema for user-generated content comments, as opposed to the collaboration comments defined in #65 – but ideally with enough overlap and use of a common base model like the W3C Annotation Model


  • 点赞
  • 写回答
  • 关注问题
  • 收藏
  • 复制链接分享
  • 邀请回答


  • weixin_39773158 weixin_39773158 5月前

    Nino Walker and I have been talking about this in email and it's a complex problem since in some systems a comment's body can have any type of UGC present - and then how is it not an asset (or something large in itself). Definitely glad you put this back in play...but I don't see us resolving this one soon.

    Also DC has chosen to punt on these for our June release (for this and other reasons)

    点赞 评论 复制链接分享
  • weixin_39800331 weixin_39800331 5月前


    点赞 评论 复制链接分享
  • weixin_39800331 weixin_39800331 5月前

    in some systems a comment's body can have any type of UGC present - and then how is it not an asset (or something large in itself).

    I'd see two ways to start here:

    • build up: UGC is author + time + comment + extra and we gradually let extensions define extra, starting without any extras like attachments, links, etc.
    • narrow down: UGC is author + time + content, and we start by defining different types of content, including plain comment, file, etc.
    点赞 评论 复制链接分享
  • weixin_39773158 weixin_39773158 5月前

    the problem that and I identified is that comment/content is the same thing, since even just supporting "rich text markup" (eg. bold, italics) on your comments - which some might say is table stakes - makes it content and not comment (in your definition). The W3C has great work here on schemas for comments and it is what I plan to use as the basis - but as it is general purpose, it needs some tightening into our usage...

    点赞 评论 复制链接分享