Re: [web-annotation] (Protocol) Editorial issues about IRI

I see.
My reading was " the server may assign HTTPS IRIs" and any others, 
such as HTTP IRIs or mailto IRIs, "to resources.".

The HTTPS recommendation is from distribution purposes, and I'm 100% 
agree with you to assign  HTTPS IRIs for resources which are available
 from the server.
And if it is the case, I prefer to be said that "Upon receipt of an 
Annotation, the server may assign HTTPS IRIs to distributable 
resources". It might be necessary to define what is "distributable 
resources" separately, though.

On the other hand, since we have many non-"oa" properties, such as 
foaf:Parson, and the server will need to "assign" appropriate IDs, for
 instance mailto IRI, and/or HTTP IRIs such as ORCID ID, for those 
Annotation resources, I'm afraid these IRIs which are mostly used for 
identification purpose are dropped from the scope.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tkanai
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/299#issuecomment-225487510
 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 13 June 2016 04:34:18 UTC