- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 14:20:27 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
Yes, an implementation MAY have a resolving service do dereference a URN, but why would we have to say it SHOULD (because that is what you propose translates to). I can imagine an implementation that stores annotations locally (not necessarily in a server, ie, not necessarily accessible via the protocol), and would use the RDF Graph model to store the annotations, hence use URN for unique identifications, but all that done strictly internally. Such an implementation has no interest in using URL-s or resolvable URN-s, and it should be still valid. MAY allows for that. Strictly speaking, so does SHOULD, but that latter is stronger. I do not see why we would have to modify that. (FWIW, what you describe as "First" in your comment coincides with my understanding.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/372#issuecomment-257578199 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2016 14:20:33 UTC