- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 09:58:46 +0100
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- CC: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Dear Robert, > 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. And then you will add /misc because everything is miscellaneous? :-) Perhaps those future extensions that do not exist yet will find another umbrella and short name they like. I appreciate you want to foresee the future but sometimes, pragmatics is good too, and in this case, it does not harm extensibility so I would indeed be in favor of dropping /core. > 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? Yes, there is one, at least voiced, I'm not sure it has been recorded in any document. This comes back to a very long discussion the community had at the time where w3c was publishing the conversion of WordNet in OWL/RDF and the rationale was: - if your vocab is 'small', then use # - if your vocab is 'large', then use / In the case of Wordnet, it is obvious you don't want to load a several mega bytes file each time you have to dereference a synset. I consider OA small enough to adopt the # pattern. Best regards. 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/
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 08:59:33 UTC