Re: [agenda} Web Annotation WG teleconf Agenda (2014-11-12)

> On 11 Nov 2014, at 23:05 , Robert Sanderson <> wrote:
> <skip/>
> >> Approve shortname 'web-annotation’ (or alternative)
> > I suggest that we come up with a more discrete shortname for each of our deliverables, since they all pertain to web annotation.
> > Since this is specifically about the data model, maybe 'web-anno-data-model', 'web-anno-model', or 'web-anno-vocab’
> agree, wa-model probably too close to ws*,  suggest webanno-model
> I think we need to discuss the consequences of the selection as a group.  For example, if that means we have TR/web-anno-data-model/ and TR/web-anno-vocab/ rather than (for example) TR/web-annotation/model/ , then that's pretty important.

I do not think the latter works with the W3C publication rules. All documents must be under /TR/, ie, should not introduce further hierarchies. Related documents usually share part (usually the beginning) of the short name. See, for example, the RDF1.1 suite (rdf11-concepts, rdf11-model), or the XML Schema documents (xmlschema11-1, xmlschema11-2) etc. So something like web-anno-* or webanno-* is o.k., /TR/web-anno/model/ is not

> Especially as the current document contains model, vocab and serialization but we may wish to split that up in the future, or we may wish to keep it as it is.

It is indeed important to have a clearer idea; that being said, these names are not cast in concrete. If the group decides, later, to introduce new documents with new short names and/or abandon/change an existing one: it is all doable. 


> Let's not be hasty :)
> Rob
> -- 
> Rob Sanderson
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305

Ivan Herman, W3C 
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
mobile: +31-641044153

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 04:25:24 UTC