- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:49:31 +0000
- To: Christophe Guéret <c.d.m.gueret@vu.nl>
- Cc: Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>, "public-gld-wg@w3.org" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
On 24 Nov 2011, at 11:13, Christophe Guéret wrote: > I found Sandro's proposal of using .net because vocabularies are part of the infrastructure quite reasonable, .net is for *network* infrastructure and many publishers of vocabularies might not quite see the analogy between a vocabulary and a bunch of cables ;-) > why is there so many people going for .org? (the answer may be in the paper, I haven't read it yet...) .org is for non-profit or non-commercial organisations and has come to be the domain of choice for most websites that are not intended to make any money and are not advertising a commercial product. > Btw, it would be interesting to know why the schema.org went for .org and if they considered different alternative before going for that one. Well, most web infrastructure stuff is to be found on .org domains, and this was always the case: sitemaps.org robotstxt.org whatwg.org ietf.org w3.org iana.org So they're mostly following tradition, I guess. Richard > I assume they have a rather strong commitment in keeping this domain name alive. > > Best, > Christophe >
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 14:50:01 UTC