- From: Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 17:02:46 -0400
- To: "'Rob Sanderson via GitHub'" <sysbot+gh@w3.org>, "'public-annotation@w3.org'" <public-annotation@w3.org>
Pro Web: "open" is one of the most gratuitously overused words in the English language. ("open" archive, "open" URL, linked "open" data, "open" data, ... I could go on and on. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Sanderson via GitHub [mailto:sysbot+gh@w3.org] > Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 4:55 PM > To: public-annotation@w3.org > Subject: [web-annotation] "Open" or "Web" Annotation > > azaroth42 has just created a new issue for > https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation: > > == "Open" or "Web" Annotation == > > There's a mix of the two in the specification documents and we should be > consistent. > > Pro "Open": > * There's already brand name recognition > * There's already implementations and usage of the ontology, which we have > updated rather than re-designed. > * The namespace is ns/oa# and it would be good not to change it [c.f. danbri > and foaf] > > Pro "Web": > * The WG is the Web AWG, not the Open AWG. > * The protocol and client APIs are not derived from the CG work > > > See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/46
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2015 21:03:15 UTC