All ordered lists should be `items`

[azaroth42]

If we are moving to collection.members and range.members, should we also rename canvases on Sequence?

Further, as we are moving to the Activity Streams pattern for Annotation Lists per https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#annotation-page and #496 ... I think we should actually use items to be consistent throughout.

[azaroth42]

In other words:

{
  "type": "Collection",
  "items": [
    {
      "type": "Manifest",
      "items": [
        {
          "type": "Sequence",
          "items": [
            {
              "type": "Canvas",
              "items": [
                {
                  "type": "AnnotationPage",
                  "items": [
                    {
                      "type": "Annotation"

[azaroth42]

Is it confusing, inconsistent, or worse that AnnotationPage objects can be in the items lists of both Canvas and AnnotationCollection (previously known as Layer)?

[tomcrane]

I was +1 to the idea of items everywhere, but now I'm wondering if the intent conveyed by terms like content, to associate a canvas with its content, is more important as an aid to understanding what is going on than the consistency of using the same term to associate resources with AnnotationPage (and other resources) throughout. I'm not -1 though.

[azaroth42]

c.f. #1068 -- is the set of annotationpages for a Canvas items and the set of AnnotationPages on everything else annotations?

[tomcrane]

I am now 👍 as it resolves a difficult naming problem elsewhere.

However, even though we're still in alpha, the term content is now familiar to many people from the Presentation 3 work.

So I will email iiif-discuss to explain the proposed naming, ahead of Toronto.

[zimeon]

👍 agreed at Toronto WG meeting

[azaroth42]

Done, and duplicate of the renaming issue: http://prezi3.iiif.io/api/presentation/3.0/#items

[zimeon]

👍 agree done (and nice intro text)

[mikeapp]

👍 also agree done, closing