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

Re: New Specification Published!

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:29:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUEXZpb2FGax8CnnM+ApvhtjnBjc1u2-5w_BHtZB-=VOjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Smith <jgsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi James,

Another possibility, to avoid the /, could be:

and if we need another namespace in the future:


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

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