conclusion to Re: suggested shortnames

I think the guidance I'm hearing is toward these shortnames:
        
        vocab-qb
        vocab-dcat
        vocab-org
        vocab-people
        gld-bp

I sounds like everyone's okay with these, and they're in the style
people seem to be preferring.   So, unless some problem turns up, I
expect we'll go ahead with these.

     -- Sandro

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 09:41 +0100, Martin Kaltenböck wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> On 07/03/12 12:33, Benedikt Kämpgen wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >> vocab-people
> >> vocab-org for the Organization Ontology?
> >> vocab-data-cube for the Data Cube Vocabulary?
> >
> > All fine for me. For the Data Cube Vocabulary vocab-qb would probably work as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Martin: +1 from me (also when Sandros 1st suggestion: publishing-linked-data was for sure the best human readable
> version of this I do think that the short versions are better for future use)
> 
> Cheers - martin
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Benedikt
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:27 AM
> >> To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
> >> Subject: suggested shortnames
> >>
> >> One aspect of publication by W3C is the assignment of a permanent URL to
> >> the document and its future versions.   For example:
> >>
> >>          http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax
> >>
> >>          http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris
> >>
> >>          http://www.w3.org/TR/gov-data
> >>
> >>          http://www.w3.org/TR/void
> >>
> >>          http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub
> >>
> >> The selection of that last part, the "shortname", is technically up to the W3C
> >> staff/management, but ideally it's something the WG is happy with, too.
> >>
> >> In our last telecon I agreed to suggest names for our documents.
> >>
> >> For some of them, the current names on the editor's draft filenames are
> >> fine, I think: data-cube, data-cube-ucr, dcat, dcat-ucr.
> >>
> >> For "org" and "people", I'm inclined to go with vocab-org and
> >> vocab-people.   I think http://www.w3.org/TR/people suggests a somewhat
> >> larger scope than this document has.
> >>
> >> For bp, I don't have any great ideas.   ldpb, linked-data-pb,
> >> ld-best-practices, gld-best-practices, ld-pb, ld-pub, ... these would
> >> all be acceptable, I think, but none are great.     The one aspect of
> >> this that's not a coin flip, I think, is whether to put the word
> >> "government" and the letter "g" in the title.   I lean slightly against
> >> it, because I think it would scare away some people who would find the
> >> document useful, but that's just my relatively uninformed opinion.
> >>
> >> If I had to pick right now, I'd go with "publishing-linked-data", which is a
> >> pretty long "short" name, but it's clear, at least.
> >>
> >> So, those are my suggestions; I'm happy to discuss them more.
> >>
> >>       -- Sandro
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 14:45:25 UTC