In various places the text says something like: An Annotation should have exactly 1 http/https URI that identifies it. I do not think we should restrict anywhere the identification to be HTTP(S) (even with a SHOULD); we should be silent on that issue and stick to URI-s. There are other URI schemes around, and communities do use those, whether we like it or not. A typical example is the usage of the DOI scheme in the scientific publishing domain (even if there is a standard 'mapping' of those to HTTP); we do not want to give the impression that those are not usable. I know that the Linked Data community has the extra constraint, when using RDF, to insist on HTTP(S). We can add a (non-normative) note that it is advised to use HTTP(S) for a better linkage to other data. But that is different than requiring it in a normative text. (as an aside, it is probably better to capitalize on http(s), that is the usual usage). Ivan ---- 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
Received on Friday, 16 October 2015 11:49:40 UTC