W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > July 2015

RE: [web-annotation] "Open" or "Web" Annotation

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>
Message-ID: <0EEF938438DEF843A0AAAC358E4A9874016F760C@LCXCLMB03.LCDS.LOC.GOV>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:37 UTC