Re: [web-annotation] Add `mbox_sha1sum` for the same reason(s) FOAF did

@azaroth42 there is not a registered `urn:sha1` nor is there one that 
states that this one is a `sha1` of a `mailto`, so...while I love the 
idea of putting this in the `id` field, there's not a current way to 
do that. It can't (imo) be an HTTP URL because the only 
"authoritative" URI I have for the user is their `mailto:`--which I 
was previously storing (and making available to others) in the `email`
 field.

I could (and perhaps this is what we should recommend) create a local 
URL for the user (based on a sha1 or whatever I feel like) and use 
that HTTP URL as the `id`--in which case it would be up to me to 
decide what I returned there.

The disadvantage here, though, is that as the annotation "moved 
around" among other annotation systems, the author's annotations could
 end up with many different `id`'s--vs. this approach of having a 
consistent way to create what FOAF calls an "indirect 
identifier"...essentially a "hash tag" (in the original sense ;) ) for
 that `creator`. All annotation systems creation annotations on behalf
 of a given email address would then create the same "indirect 
identifier" which would work in a similar fashion to the UUID we've 
been discussion for the annotation as a whole--a method of 
identification that doesn't dictate a required (or even known) 
interference location.

I'd like to avoid the requirement to store `creator` data in an 
additional place to annotations made by those creators. It certainly 
MAY be done, but I think it's out of scope to require that.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by BigBlueHat
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/115#issuecomment-159622408
 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2015 14:29:08 UTC