W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > December 2015

Re: [web-annotation] Annotation alsoKnownAs <uri>

From: Rob Sanderson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:26:32 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-165184218-1450286791-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

To address the 'which of these URIs is canonical' question, I propose 
(quite simply) that we allow both `via` and `canonical` :smile_cat: 

There may not be a canonical URI, for example if the client doesn't 
provide a URI at all and sends the annotation to multiple servers.  It
 would be unwise for servers to assert a canonical URI without 
instruction from the client, as we could end up with many competing 
canonical URIs. 

So the processing requirements would be:
  * If a server receives an Annotation with a URI in `id` from a 
client, it SHOULD put it in `via` and put its own URI for the 
annotation in `id`.  (e.g. a push scenario for acquisition of the 
  * If a federating server discovers and harvests an Annotation with a
 URI in `id`, then it MUST put it in `via` and use its own URI for its
 copy. (e.g. a pull scenario for acquisition of the anno)
  * Servers MUST maintain any asserted `canonical` URI, and there MUST
 be at most one canonical URI asserted. It MAY also be in `via`.

GitHub Notification of comment by azaroth42
Please view or discuss this issue at 
 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 17:26:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:43 UTC