- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 20:40:03 +0000
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CAFfrAFpNsuVXK2HewKbf5+PJN22ey=tuLXthHJ8PiQMrw35o0Q@mail.gmail.com>
On 6 Feb 2013 07:52, "Robert Sanderson" <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have to disagree, for three primary reasons: > > 1. We've had that namespace published for quite a while now, and > people are implementing using it. While they may have to change the > code to update to the new specification, if they were only using the > basics, they might not have to. > > 2. The discussion at the first f2f meeting in Boston with Dan Brickley > was that we should pick a namespace and stick with it through thick > and thin. Changing it just to lose a few characters doesn't seem like > a strong enough argument to me to go against this decision. Changing namespaces is indeed a real pain. I wish I'd changed the foaf one in 2000 to remove the 0.1 in the url; but the moment never seemed right. There is however a lot to be said for memorable ns urls (short is good but I rate memorable more highly). > 3. Having it spelt out in full is a good branding strategy. "OA" has > many other expansions that are significantly more well known than Open > Annotation. Open Access comes instantly to mind, for example. > > > I do agree that the namespace document, and if at all possible the > specification itself, should live at the W3C. It would be great to > make that happen as soon as possible. Yup. Dan > Rob > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Paolo Ciccarese > <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am in favor of a more compact namespace. > > With oa replacing openannotation. > > > > Paolo > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Raphaël Troncy < raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> > > wrote: > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> First of all, congrats to the entire group and the many feedback received > >> which has been really well addressed so far in the perfect consensus spirit > >> that W3C is promoting! > >> > >> I wanted to add a big +1 for the core annotation ontology to be > >> permanently stored and maintained in w3c namespace. There will be the > >> question of what is the right ns to use. At the moment, on can have: > >> - http://www.w3.org/ns/prov# for PROV > >> - http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont# for Media Annotations > >> > >> ... so why not considering: > >> - http://www.w3.org/ns/oa-core# for the Open Annotation ontology instead > >> of having the community group web space one? > >> > >> Raphaël > >> > >> -- > >> Raphaël Troncy > >> EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech > >> Multimedia Communications Department > >> 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France. > >> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com > >> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 > >> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 > >> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/ > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Paolo Ciccarese > > http://www.paolociccarese.info/ > > Biomedical Informatics Research & Development > > Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School > > Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital > > Member of the MGH Biomedical Informatics Core > > +1-857-366-1524 (mobile) +1-617-768-8744 (office) > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s), > > may contain information that is considered > > to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to any > > other party without the permission of the sender. > > If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender > > immediately. >
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 20:40:31 UTC