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

Re: Persistence

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:49:31 +0000
Cc: Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>, "public-gld-wg@w3.org" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AE85AB20-DED2-489F-A711-537861F9A0B5@cyganiak.de>
To: Christophe Guéret <c.d.m.gueret@vu.nl>
On 24 Nov 2011, at 11:13, Christophe Guéret wrote:
> I found Sandro's proposal of using .net because vocabularies are part of the infrastructure quite reasonable,

.net is for *network* infrastructure and many publishers of vocabularies might not quite see the analogy between a vocabulary and a bunch of cables ;-)

> why is there so many people going for .org? (the answer may be in the paper, I haven't read it yet...)

.org is for non-profit or non-commercial organisations and has come to be the domain of choice for most websites that are not intended to make any money and are not advertising a commercial product.

> 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.

Well, most web infrastructure stuff is to be found on .org domains, and this was always the case:

sitemaps.org
robotstxt.org
whatwg.org
ietf.org
w3.org
iana.org

So they're mostly following tradition, I guess.

Richard




> I assume they have a rather strong commitment in keeping this domain name alive.
> 
> Best,
> Christophe
> 
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 14:50:01 UTC

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