- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:54:29 -0700
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: James Smith <jgsmith@gmail.com>, public-openannotation@w3.org, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Dear all, On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> 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. Sorry (again!), I meant that /TR/openannotation/ (and subsequent redirect) would be for the specification, and the namespace would be /ns/openannotation# to mirror that structure. > 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... To timebox the discussion so we can make the change, please can everyone weigh in as soon as possible, even if just to say that you don't have an opinion. Once that's done, we can update the ontology and work with Ivan and Phil to have it published (and corresponding change to the specification). Many thanks! Rob
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 17:54:56 UTC