- From: Rob Sanderson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:26:32 +0000
- To: public-annotation@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 anno) * 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 https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/21#issuecomment-165184218 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 17:26:34 UTC