- From: dorian taylor <dorian.taylor@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:25:03 -0700
- To: "public-openannotation@w3.org" <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Check out RFC 6920: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6920 I'm using it (and its .well-known/ni morphism) in a content-addressable storage system to cryptographically identify opaque data objects by their content. (I'm also shoving the "ni:" URIs into ETags.) You can use "ni:" URIs just fine as RDF nodes. Here's some code to generate 'em: http://search.cpan.org/~dorian/URI-ni/lib/URI/ni.pm On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:01 AM, O'Steen, Ben <Ben.O'Steen@bl.uk> wrote: > Is etag a viable route to pass this information on? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_ETag > > > > It specifies that the etag identifier is an opaque identifier, and the > standard is used for cache validation. Is this suitable for IIIF to > piggyback on? For instance, IIIF specifies that the etag MUST have the > md5/sha as the identifier, but the rest of the world need not care, as it > would function as a regular etag anyhow. Plus, it all helps caching down the > line so win-win hopefully! Aside from the time to hash the image file tho… -- Dorian Taylor Make things. Make sense. http://doriantaylor.com
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 03:25:37 UTC