W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Annotations which verify their content

From: dorian taylor <dorian.taylor@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:25:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAr_vNxM9D6b8tjjxgsimDXGJgGyOekna7J7mF61y-grgHMrOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-openannotation@w3.org" <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Check out RFC 6920: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6920

I'm using it (and its .well-known/ni morphism) in a
content-addressable storage system to cryptographically identify
opaque data objects by their content. (I'm also shoving the "ni:" URIs
into ETags.)

You can use "ni:" URIs just fine as RDF nodes. Here's some code to
generate 'em: http://search.cpan.org/~dorian/URI-ni/lib/URI/ni.pm

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:01 AM, O'Steen, Ben <Ben.O'Steen@bl.uk> wrote:
> Is etag a viable route to pass this information on?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_ETag
>
>
>
> It specifies that the etag identifier is an opaque identifier, and the
> standard is used for cache validation. Is this suitable for IIIF to
> piggyback on? For instance, IIIF specifies that the etag MUST have the
> md5/sha as the identifier, but the rest of the world need not care, as it
> would function as a regular etag anyhow. Plus, it all helps caching down the
> line so win-win hopefully! Aside from the time to hash the image file tho…



-- 
Dorian Taylor
Make things. Make sense.
http://doriantaylor.com
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 03:25:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:06 UTC