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: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:22:17 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-155094192-1447082535-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
So, our spec (and most other W3C specs, I'd reckon) use the 
 term as a Link Relationship to point to previous drafts of a 

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

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