Re: WA vs. OA

This is what I was saying on Wednesday ... if we change the namespace,
rather than creating a new one, we force the update to the new model.  This
is why we left the CG work as a draft. We should put a warning into the OA
drafts regardless.

There is a lot of brand name recognition for Open Annotation, far far more
than "web annotation" which seems more like a generic class of annotations.
This was also discussed when OAC and AO merged -- we dropped the
"Collaboration" and the "Ontology" to try and be more inclusive.

OA has had a lot of time and outreach to gain traction and mindshare, which
I feel we should capitalize on.  The split helps no one.

Note that the presentation that followed the NaCTeM one from EMBL-EBI said
"web annotation data model" but was actually the open annotation model (it
used oa:SemanticTag, which no longer exists).

Rob


On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Listening the various presentations at I Annotate… I think we have to do
> some active outreach steps so that various implementations should NOT
> implement whatever they do based on OA but based on WA. I am not sure what
> the best way to do this (there probably several actions to be done); one
> possibility is to "officially" rescind the OA documents, ie, add some notes
> on the front pages warning the user that she/he should refer to the WA as
> the most up-to-date annotation model & co. I am a little bit concerned that
> OA will, somehow, overshadow WA.
>
>
> I.
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049