W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > February 2013

Re: New Specification Published!

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:47:19 +0100
Message-ID: <51138637.9030502@few.vu.nl>
To: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On 2/7/13 11:38 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 11:30 , Antoine Isaac<aisaac@few.vu.nl>  wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/13 11:27 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:59 , Antoine Isaac<aisaac@few.vu.nl>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Not sure I'm going to deliver crucial input, but in case, here are my two cents.
>>>>
>>>> - I find shorter namespaces good, and I wouldn't mind using 'oa' even if it means sthg else--first come fist serve, and it matches what other vocabularies at W3C seem to be doing. Worst case, if the group prefers a meaningful label, I'd prefer /annotation/ over /openannotation/. I suppose 'open' does not add much info in the context of a W3C namespace. Such a change would also tell something about the maturity and ambition of the initiative :-)
>>>>
>>>> - I like 'core', but that because I still would prefer the current namespace to be broken down (especially, the motivation instances could go to their own sub-space).
>>>> If the modules defined in the namespace (like 'annotation/core') do not match the modules in the spec documentation, it may be counter productive. Which makes me realize that we've got a "core of a "core",, which is a bit awkward:
>>>> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html
>>>> But I suppose we can make it disappear when the HTML also moves to another place.
>>>>
>>>> Side question: Ivan, Phil, would it be possible to have a core in http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/ and later extensions in say, http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/ext/? Or would it ruin your dreams of simple maintenance of the namespace?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well... this is again the # vs. / question.
>>>
>>> Having
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation/core#BLABLA
>>> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation/ext1#BLABLA
>>>
>>> is of course no problem. Having '/' means a file per term, which means the maintenance costs become higher. Whether that is spread over several directories is of course not a real difference. It will be the number of terms that will count (in contrast to the number of extensions in the case of a '#' approach).
>>
>>
>> Sorry Ivan I've been unclear--and typed one slash too many. I meant:
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation#BLABLA
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation/ext1#BLABLA\
>
> Hm... I think the server would be messed up with the
>
> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation
>
> whether it is a file or a directory name... If that is the line we go, then I think
>
>>> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation/core#BLABLA
>>> http://www.w3.org/ns/annotation/ext1#BLABLA
>
> is definitely simpler.
>
> (Unless somebody has a neat trick to fool apache!)


OK, that's the kind of problem I was afraid of. So my suggestion for making extensions NS co-exist with an 'implicit' core NS is a no-go.

Antoine
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 10:47:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:22 UTC