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

Thanks for the clarifications, Ivan!

If we had one multi-part specification, we could still have multiple
documents, though?
For example, TR/CSS/ is just a table of contents... meaning we could have
documents on the pattern of:

?  Or does that imply that we'd need to take everything through in one go,
rather than in pieces?

Apologies for the newbie chair questions :)

Assuming that we do want different short names for every document...

I would propose to drop "web-"
  * it's implicit in it being a W3C spec to some degree
  * it's not actually necessary to use the model (eg an offline epub
reading system)

So, some possibilities to consider:

oa-                   # short and we already have the CG's namespace at
anno-               # more recognisable than just two characters
annotation-      # full word, but similar length to web-anno-

For the current document:

-model            # too abstract ?
-syntax           # too concrete ?
-structure       # no precedent ?
-dm                # ala prov-dm
-ontology       # non rdf people run screaming

then for the HTTP client/server interaction:

-protocol          # what it says on the tin :)
-http-api           # not distinct enough?
-server-api       # to distinguish from -client-api for the browser side
-management-api  # too long?

for the client side:

-if                      # way not distinct enough ?
-interface          # not distinct enough ?
-client-api          # distinguish from -server-api
-client-interface # too long ?
-browser-api     # too specific

And for robust anchoring:


Though I would be in favor of putting this *outside* of the annotation
scope, as it's something we need but isn't exclusively for us, so:

web-anchoring           # it's not every document format, just web ones
robust-anchoring       # ... but this would be better for reading systems

My personal preferences for names:



On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Ivan Herman <> wrote:

> > 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.
> Ivan
> > 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
> Home:
> mobile: +31-641044153

Rob Sanderson
Technology Collaboration Facilitator
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 04:57:40 UTC