- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 14:24:33 -0400
- To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
- Cc: www-annotation@w3.org
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 01:02:34PM -0400, Ralph R. Swick wrote: > > While debugging new Annotea server code, Eric Prud'hommeaux > and I noticed that Amaya did not exactly conform to the > Annotea protocol for updating an Annotation or a Reply. > > Per the examples in > > 2.4 Updating an annotation > http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/User/Protocol.html#Updating > > and > > 3.4 Updating a reply > http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/User/Protocol.html#UpdateR > > an Annotea client is expected to not use bnodes in the PUT > message body when referring to the existing Annotation or > Reply or their bodies. Amaya was failing to include these > URIs in the PUT body. The Annotation or Reply URI is the > PUT URI but it should still be given explicitly in the > contained RDF. The server might be able to deduce a > body URI from this, but should not be relied upon to do so. > > I have updated the Amaya CVS sources with a fix to this, so > that Amaya will not use bnodes when updating an Annotation > or a Reply. For backwards compatibility with older clients, > server developers might want to consider doing what the > current annotest server does, which is to deduce the URI > from available information when the client does not > specify it. server does this with the annotation or reply object. not yet with the body, but i have to pack and get on a plane. -- -eric office: +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA cell: +1.857.222.5741 (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than email address distribution.
Received on Saturday, 10 May 2003 14:24:35 UTC