Re: WA vs. OA

Hi Sarven,

To me, option 1 is the preferable one. The CG document is very clearly
marked as a draft, and there has been two years for people to see that
there's a new version coming. There is still at least 6 months before it
will be replaced.  So it's not like this is going to be sprung on anyone
out of the blue.

Also, given that properties that are not understood are ignored, the older
properties will just fall away when an original system tries to create an
annotation in a new server, or vice versa. The vast majority of systems
will still be compatible for the majority of structures if they use RDF,
and will be completely out of date for JSON-LD as every key has been
renamed.

The brand name of "Open Annotation" has had thousands of people using it
for 7+ years since we coined it in late 2008 (13th of November it turns
out, thanks whois) :)

Rob


On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:

> On 2016-05-20 10:40, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> Option 1: Update OA namespace with WA vocab
> Option 2: Update OA namespace with WA vocab and deprecate OA vocab
> Option 3: Create WA namespace with WA vocab
> Option 4: ?
>
> Option 1 gives dead-ends to existing deployments (although it was a
> draft). A good practice is to mark the changes so that deprecation could be
> phased out, which is why option 2 may be an okay compromise. Perhaps there
> are no tangible differences between options 1 and 2 at the end. Option 3 is
> costly, but with some benefit to using https right away.
>
> I think option 2 is doable if the definitions are not concept drifts.
> Handling deprecation in the vocab is simpler.
>
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
>
>


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