W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > March 2012

RE: suggested shortnames

From: Benedikt Kämpgen <kaempgen@fzi.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:33:15 +0100
To: <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005301ccfc5e$78539250$68fab6f0$@fzi.de>

>vocab-org for the Organization Ontology?
>vocab-data-cube for the Data Cube Vocabulary?

All fine for me. For the Data Cube Vocabulary vocab-qb would probably work as well.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:27 AM
> To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
> Subject: suggested shortnames
> One aspect of publication by W3C is the assignment of a permanent URL to
> the document and its future versions.   For example:
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/gov-data
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/void
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub
> The selection of that last part, the "shortname", is technically up to the W3C
> staff/management, but ideally it's something the WG is happy with, too.
> In our last telecon I agreed to suggest names for our documents.
> For some of them, the current names on the editor's draft filenames are
> fine, I think: data-cube, data-cube-ucr, dcat, dcat-ucr.
> For "org" and "people", I'm inclined to go with vocab-org and
> vocab-people.   I think http://www.w3.org/TR/people suggests a somewhat
> larger scope than this document has.
> For bp, I don't have any great ideas.   ldpb, linked-data-pb,
> ld-best-practices, gld-best-practices, ld-pb, ld-pub, ... these would
> all be acceptable, I think, but none are great.     The one aspect of
> this that's not a coin flip, I think, is whether to put the word
> "government" and the letter "g" in the title.   I lean slightly against
> it, because I think it would scare away some people who would find the
> document useful, but that's just my relatively uninformed opinion.
> If I had to pick right now, I'd go with "publishing-linked-data", which is a
> pretty long "short" name, but it's clear, at least.
> So, those are my suggestions; I'm happy to discuss them more.
>      -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 12:33:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:35 UTC