- From: Rob Sanderson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 20:32:24 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
azaroth42 has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation: == Should the namespace change? == >From #46, there is the question of whether the namespace should change for the model. Note that this is only a concern from the RDF perspective, not the preferred JSON serialization which won't have even a prefix, let alone the complete namespace (per #12). >From the telco on 2015-07-08, some of the discussion included: * There's a lot of use of the namespace * Changing namespaces is generally a bad idea * Backwards compatibility without changing the namespace is important * The CG spec is explicitly a draft, so we need not feel too constrained by changing the definitions in a non-backwards-compatible way * It demonstrates continuity and inclusion, rather than division and competition, hopefully avoiding splitting the community of practice * It has the oa acronym ... which would be confusing without the history The decision on the call was to defer the decision until later. See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/53
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2015 20:32:25 UTC