W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Persistence

From: Christophe Guéret <c.d.m.gueret@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:13:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CABP9CAEC_fRAsBa1_L8QgW2Y2PEkmk=rvua6aj8bCKAup_-Hvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
CC: "public-gld-wg@w3.org" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
On 23 November 2011 14:31, Ghislain Atemezing
<auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>wrote:

> On 22/11/2011 15:30, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> > I'm agnostic regarding the top-level domain. I note that the .net TLD
> isn't terribly popular and I can't think of many current examples of
> vocabularies in the .net namespace.
>
> You are right Richard. If I consider this paper of Gong Cheng et al. [1]
> presented at the last ISWC'2011 where they analyzed a set of 2,996
> vocabularies, they came out with the distribution of the number of
> vocabs hosted over top-level domains..For instance, you have the following:
>   -.org : > 1300 vocabs
>   -.edu : > 900 vocabs
>   -.com: > 150 vocabs; follow by .eu, .uk and .fr.
>   -.net: < 100 vocabs..
>
I found Sandro's proposal of using .net because vocabularies are part of
the infrastructure quite reasonable, why is there so many people going for
.org? (the answer may be in the paper, I haven't read it yet...)
Btw, it would be interesting to know why the schema.org went for .org and
if they considered different alternative before going for that one. I
assume they have a rather strong commitment in keeping this domain name
alive.

Best,
Christophe
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 11:14:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:34 UTC