- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:29:57 -0700
- To: James Smith <jgsmith@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi James, Another possibility, to avoid the /, could be: /ns/openannotation# and if we need another namespace in the future: /ns/openannotation-ext# Rob On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:24 AM, James Smith <jgsmith@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't have too strong of an opinion, but I can see the namespace ending in a hash as a bit nicer than one ending in a slash if we have some namespaces being substrings of other namespaces (e.g., http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/ and http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/ext1/ instead of http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation# and http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/ext1#). > > This doesn't change the fact that namespaces are just opaque strings, but it helps if applications expect to take a namespace, attach the element, and resolve that to some document about that element in that namespace, and also resolve the original namespace to a document about that namespace. > > -- Jim > > On Feb 7, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 18:30:25 UTC