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

Re: [web-annotation] Annotation updated timestamp

From: BigBlueHat via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 14:09:26 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-154417992-1446818963-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
This issue and #21 are buzzing in my head as I discuss (im)mutability 
with @jbenet and others working on @ipfs.

If/as we discuss "distributed annotation" such that they may be 
"birthed" offline and later appear on the public web, we face several 
issues concerning identity and change over time.

If I create an annotation in my browser, what URI does it get (see 

If I send it into the world and multiple copies of it are made, would 
it matter if I later changed the original and recorded a `modified` 

Wouldn't it be better to distribute a *new* annotation which 
references the original via a 
or `prov:wasDerivedFrom` or similar relationship (see #21 again)?

So...I'm OK having the `modified` (or `updated`) key/value available, 
but...I fear it implies something--in the context of distributed 
annotation--which is not actually implementable...in the same way I 
can't "modify" an email I've sent...including the one generated by my 
typing this in GitHub. :wink:

Actually...this text box is a great example. It does store 
`updated_at` (see [this 
 *and* gets distributed via email and likely consumed via the API into
 who knows how many possible tools. If I update this later, few(er) 
things will get triggered, notified, etc.

The value of `updated_at` in this case, then, is anthropological, and 
really only signals that the copy I have in my hand (from email) may 
no longer `===` the thing I get off the Web...hmm...

Fun problem. :smile: Hopefully that stream of consciousness is 
helpful. :wink:

What I'm thinking now:
 - [ ] we add `modified` (or `updated` to match AS)
 - [ ] we nail down #21 such that a chain of identifiers can be built 
up as the annotation moves about the Web and off the Web
 - [ ] we explain that `modified` really only refers to the copy you 
have in hand--which may be tricky if the `@id` stays the same while a 
`via` "chain" gets appended too with each stored copy...

:confounded: Certainly this is simpler when you can only append in the
 first place. :wink: 

k. Someone else chime in before I think myself back through the loop. 

GitHub Notif of comment by BigBlueHat
Received on Friday, 6 November 2015 14:09:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:42 UTC