Re: New Specification Published!

On Feb 7, 2013, at 18:32 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ivan,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 2013, at 18:02 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is it possible to reserve a TR space for the community group, or do we
>>> need to form a community group first for that to happen?
> 
>> I am sorry, I did not realize that the first one was .../TR/... The problem is that /TR/ is meant exclusively for publications produced by a Working Group or an Interest Group. Ie, that is not an option for this document as of now. I am sorry.
> 
> No problem, of course!
> 
> Hypothetically, if there was a working group formed, would
> /TR/openannotation/ be okay?  Or are there further requirements that
> we should be aware of, and thus affect the namespace decision?
> 

Actually, no it would not. The current publication rules are such that /TR/ is exclusively for the specifications themselves. What that would mean is, hypothetically, that one would have

/TR/openannotation/

be redirected to 

/TR/2014/REC-openannotation-20140101/

and then one could imagine defining a 

/TR/openannotation/ontology.ttl

for the ontology itself (note that it is NOT /TR/openannotation/, which is a specification!). However, we usually advice not to do that. Indeed, again per W3C publication rules, once something is published under /TR/2014/XXX/*, that is cast in concrete. *Any* change requires a new resolution, a new URI, etc, which has proven to be a pain for ontologies. Hence even Working Groups publish their ontologies in /ns/ these days. So back to square one:-(

But this is hypothetical. As said elsewhere in the thread, the decision should be taken now and stick to it, regardless on whether there will be a separate working group or not. (Note that we have not even discussed that eventuality yet, and there is no commitment to have one, ie, let us not bring that into this discussion...)

Based on the thread so far (and trying to avoid the discussion dragging on) and be an outsider in this group, my feeling is that

http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation#

seems to be acceptable for everyone, ie, it is a good candidate for consensus. But it is not my decision...


> 
> Apologies for all these logistical questions :)
> 

No need for apologies! These are valid questions...

Ivan


> 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