Re: [web-annotation] Annotation updated timestamp

We are getting into similar discussions in the publishing IG re 
publications. Influenced by that discussion, I wonder: why do we need 
that 'via'? If we adopt the approach of (conceptually) separating the 
ID and the locator, then we can simply say

```
{
  "id" : "… any URN, uuid or other",
  "url": "http://bla.bla.bla <http://bla.bla.bla/>"
}
```

If an application wants to have something reflecting provenance, it 
can use provenance related vocabularies. We should not dictate that.

Just a thought…

Ivan

> On 16 Nov 2015, at 16:49, BigBlueHat <notifications@github.com> 
wrote:
> 
> So, one option would be to use a UUID (as @timbl 
<https://github.com/timbl> suggested at TPAC), but use it as the id 
value--obviously this makes these id's non-dereferencable.
> 
> However, if we require (I know, I know...) a via chain to be present
 such that the minimal published Annotation becomes:
> 
> {
>   "id": "...uuid...",
>   "type": "Annotation",
>   "via": "http://annotation-server.example/~bigbluehat/...uuid...",
>   "target": "http://example.com/"
> }
> Before publication it would be just the id, type, and target. At 
publication, the via URL would get added-- the expectation being that 
others can use the IRI's stored in via as locators (though that 
wouldn't be a requirement, I don't think).
> 
> Here's via's definition from RFC4287 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#page-22>:
> 
> The value "via" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href
> attribute identifies a resource that is the source of the
> information provided in the containing element.
> 
> A copy made by @jbenet <https://github.com/jbenet> in IPFS +/- some 
additional statements could then look like:
> 
> {
>   "id": "...uuid...",
>   "type": "Annotation",
>   "via": [
>     "http://annotation-server.example/~bigbluehat/...uuid...",
>     "https://ipfs.io/ipfs/...ipfs hash of annotation content, public
 key, etc..."
>   ]
>   "target": "http://example.com/"
> }
> Annotation systems (offline web browsers, ebook readers, etc) could 
make Web Annotations, and publish them later.
> 
> Obviously this is beginning to effect protocol topics...so, tagging 
it that way also.
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub 
<https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/96#issuecomment-157075465>.
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704






-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/96#issuecomment-157077627
 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 16 November 2015 15:57:36 UTC