- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:11:37 +0100
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <E2A2EEA7-6DEE-42D2-94D7-BFF1822003FF@w3.org>
Robert, you ask [[[ > 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? ]]] there is no formal W3C Best Practice, ie, in the sense of a requirement. But, as Raphaël answered you, the practice until now was indeed to favour '#' for small(er) vocabularies. Putting my SW Activity Lead's hat *down* for now: I must also say that setting up and maintaining a '#' vocabulary under /ns is really easy (you give me one file in, say, turtle or RDF/XML, maybe in RDFa+HTML, and that is it), whereas setting up a '/' approach is certainly more convoluted. My *personal* favourite is certainly a '#' in this case, also to be in line with the other, similar vocabularies. I cannot judge how widespread the usage of this vocabulary is and any change is certainly a pain. I think it is worthwhile asking the bulk of the implementers whether a change would really be a big problem for them. Put it another way: this is probably the last moment when such a change can still be envisaged... As Bob Morris says in another mail, any choice made now will stick, and has to be 100% stable thereafter. Thanks Ivan On Feb 7, 2013, at 24:49 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 09:12:06 UTC