Re: WA vs. OA

On 2016-05-20 03:50, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> 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

Are there fundamental differences besides deprecation, e.g., 
redefinition of the terms?

Would retaining oa:SemanticTag (and whatever else) have any conflict 
with WA?

What if WA subsumes OA, mark outstanding OA stuff as deprecated, and 
keep the OA ns? Yes, there is still the concern with https.


Received on Friday, 20 May 2016 14:16:20 UTC