Re: [web-annotation] Annotation updated timestamp

So, our spec (and most other W3C specs, I'd reckon) use the 
[`dcterms:related`](http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/?v=terms#replaces)
 term as a Link Relationship to point to previous drafts of a 
specification.

>From a protocol *and* data model perspective this seems prudent for 
use with `updated`--or in place of it.

Such that I could do the following:

```
{
  "id": "http://example.com/annoReplaceMe",
  "via": "http://example.com/2015/11/5/annoReplaceMe",
  "target": "http://w3.org/",
  "body": {
    "content": "really great site!!1!"
  }
}
```

and then...

```
{
  "id": "http://example.com/annoReplaceMe",
  "via": "http://example.com/2015/11/9/annoReplaceMe",
  "target": "http://w3.org/",
  "body": {
    "text": "Really great site!"
  },
  "replaces": "http://example.com/2015/11/5/annoReplaceMe"
}
```

Maybe that's a bit nuts. :smile: 

In this case, `via` is being used in a similar fashion to HTTP's 
`Content-Location` header (i.e., this is where the content actually 
lives, but `id` is what I want to refer to it as).

When replaced, the `id` value is the same--amounting to an "overwrite"
 or "update" request made to the consuming graph (or storage system). 
The `replaces` value is the "content location" (expressed in `via` of 
the earlier annotation) and works in the same way it does with W3C 
specs:
 - the primary URL doesn't change
 - updates replace the primary URL
 - updates get archived (if desired) at their `via` URI

Too crazy? :smile_cat: 

-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by BigBlueHat
See 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/96#issuecomment-155094192

Received on Monday, 9 November 2015 15:22:26 UTC