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

Re: New Specification Published!

From: James Smith <jgsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 13:24:31 -0500
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-openannotation@w3.org, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Message-Id: <EE4D565E-A951-4E32-817F-624C21ADEBCB@gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
I don't have too strong of an opinion, but I can see the namespace ending in a hash as a bit nicer than one ending in a slash if we have some namespaces being substrings of other namespaces (e.g., http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/ and http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/ext1/ instead of http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation# and http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/ext1#).

This doesn't change the fact that namespaces are just opaque strings, but it helps if applications expect to take a namespace, attach the element, and resolve that to some document about that element in that namespace, and also resolve the original namespace to a document about that namespace.

-- Jim

On Feb 7, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Hypothetically, if there was a working group formed, would
>>> /TR/openannotation/ be okay?  Or are there further requirements that
>>> we should be aware of, and thus affect the namespace decision?
>> Actually, no it would not. The current publication rules are such that /TR/ is exclusively for the specifications themselves.
> 
> Sorry (again!), I meant that /TR/openannotation/ (and subsequent
> redirect) would be for the specification, and the namespace would be
> /ns/openannotation# to mirror that structure.
> 
> 
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation#
>> seems to be acceptable for everyone, ie, it is a good candidate for consensus. But it is not my decision...
> 
> To timebox the discussion so we can make the change, please can
> everyone weigh in as soon as possible, even if just to say that you
> don't have an opinion.  Once that's done,  we can update the ontology
> and work with Ivan and Phil to have it published (and corresponding
> change to the specification).
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
> Rob
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 18:25:01 UTC

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