Re: WA vs. OA

Hi Sarven,

Yes, there are backwards incompatible changes such as the removal of
SemanticTag and oa:serializedBy (etc) replacements. The new ontology should
thus replace the OA CG *draft* namespace.

Rob


On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:

> 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.
>
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
>
>


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