Re: New Specification Published!

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