W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > February 2013

Re: New Specification Published!

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:38:47 +0100
Cc: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3D8FA8FA-B350-4817-93BA-B3293BBDD246@w3.org>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>

On Feb 7, 2013, at 11:30 , Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> On 2/7/13 11:27 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 
>> On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:59 , Antoine Isaac<aisaac@few.vu.nl>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Not sure I'm going to deliver crucial input, but in case, here are my two cents.
>>> 
>>> - I find shorter namespaces good, and I wouldn't mind using 'oa' even if it means sthg else--first come fist serve, and it matches what other vocabularies at W3C seem to be doing. Worst case, if the group prefers a meaningful label, I'd prefer /annotation/ over /openannotation/. I suppose 'open' does not add much info in the context of a W3C namespace. Such a change would also tell something about the maturity and ambition of the initiative :-)
>>> 
>>> - I like 'core', but that because I still would prefer the current namespace to be broken down (especially, the motivation instances could go to their own sub-space).
>>> If the modules defined in the namespace (like 'annotation/core') do not match the modules in the spec documentation, it may be counter productive. Which makes me realize that we've got a "core of a "core",, which is a bit awkward:
>>> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html
>>> But I suppose we can make it disappear when the HTML also moves to another place.
>>> 
>>> Side question: Ivan, Phil, would it be possible to have a core in http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/ and later extensions in say, http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/ext/? Or would it ruin your dreams of simple maintenance of the namespace?
>>> 
>> 
>> Well... this is again the # vs. / question.
>> 
>> Having
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation/core#BLABLA
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation/ext1#BLABLA
>> 
>> is of course no problem. Having '/' means a file per term, which means the maintenance costs become higher. Whether that is spread over several directories is of course not a real difference. It will be the number of terms that will count (in contrast to the number of extensions in the case of a '#' approach).
> 
> 
> Sorry Ivan I've been unclear--and typed one slash too many. I meant:
> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation#BLABLA
> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation/ext1#BLABLA\

Hm... I think the server would be messed up with the

http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation

whether it is a file or a directory name... If that is the line we go, then I think

>> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation/core#BLABLA
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation/ext1#BLABLA

is definitely simpler.

(Unless somebody has a neat trick to fool apache!)

Ivan




> 
> 
> Antoine
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 10:39:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:03 UTC