Re: New Specification Published!

Hi Raphaël,

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Raphaël Troncy
<raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Being one who implemented it, I can re-assure you that this will not be a
> problem. I'm curious though how many oa annotations one can find out there,
> published on the web? Any study on this?

No study and not all of these provide globally accessible systems yet,
but here's a list of pretty well known institutions that are or have
implemented just off the top of my head:

British Library
Bibliotheque Nationale de France
Oxford University
Stanford University
Meertens Institute
John Hopkins University
St Louis University
Drew University
New York University
Brown University
University of Queensland
Yale University
Harvard University
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
LANL
...

Yes, it's not a big deal to go in and change the namespace
definition... but I'd like a better reason for it before we try to get
all these developers to do it :)

> I also agree that if you plan to make a change (and I understand that you don't want), then it is better to make it earlier than later.

Yes, definitely!

> My personal feeling is that the community is
> just now actively looking at the new spec and that there is still a time
> window to change it, but I might be very wrong and under estimate how deep
> OA has already been implemented by the DL or other community.

It's a bit deeper than that, but maybe not so deep as we'd end up with
parallel universes.


> So, there are two aspects: i) the fact you indeed spell it completely
> 'openannotation' instead of 'oa' and ii) also that you use a path in your
> ns.


> Hence, should we expect that http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/ is
> itself a small ontology that contains modules defined in
> http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/core/ and
> http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/extensions/, etc.

Yes, I could buy the argument to lose /core/ now that we don't have
anything in /extensions/ .  On the other hand, it's probably good for
the future to have the possibility of /extensions/ if we need it.

Is openannotation/ an ontology? I don't think that it needs to be,
just like /ns/ doesn't need to resolve to a super-ontology either.

> No hash in your ns either? People might wonder why you do differently than other vocabs.

>From the set of namespaces that we use, not including our own the
tally looks like:  / has 5, and # has ... 5 :)
Unless there's a W3C best practice that we should follow that we don't
know about?

Many thanks!

Rob

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 23:49:28 UTC