- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:34:17 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: public-gld-wg@w3.org
Thanks Richard, Unless someone says otherwise, I'll take your first suggestion of rov. I looked in LOV - should have checked in prefix.cc. Phil. On 21/10/2012 20:25, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 18 Oct 2012, at 17:38, Phil Archer wrote: >> requested short URI /TR/vocab-regorg, >> namespace /ns/regorg# >> preferred prefix ro: > > I'd suggest not to step on the toes of the OBO folks here: > > http://prefix.cc/ro > http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/ > > How about rov or ror or reo or rego or rorg or reor or regorg as prefix? All of those are unregistered at prefix.cc. > > Best, > Richard > > > >> >> >> My sincere thanks for all the attention paid to this. Expect an updated draft spec in the coming days. >> >> Phil. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2012-10-18#Topic__3a__Core_Business_Vocabulary_renamed_to_Legal_Entity >> >> On 18/10/2012 14:48, Phil Archer wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 18/10/2012 14:39, Dave Reynolds wrote: >>> [..] >>> >>>> >>>> ARGH! I now see that you've raised this as an issue on ORG. Did you >>>> mean to do that? Surely this is an issue for the ontology formerly >>>> known as the Legal Entity vocabulary. >>> >>> It's not an issue for ORG as such and I'm as keen as you that this does >>> *not* hold up the LC transition - it shouldn't. I do, however, think it >>> helpful at this stage to clarify what the LE/RCE/WTF vocab is about and >>> why org:FormalOrganization isn't (quite) specific enough. >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> Phil Archer >> W3C eGovernment >> http://www.w3.org/egov/ >> >> http://philarcher.org >> +44 (0)7887 767755 >> @philarcher1 >> > > > -- Phil Archer W3C eGovernment http://www.w3.org/egov/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 09:34:41 UTC