- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 19:44:27 +0100
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: James Smith <jgsmith@gmail.com>, "public-openannotation@w3.org" <public-openannotation@w3.org>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
On 7 Feb 2013, at 18:54, 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. > Heh, we are getting there:-) Yes. The /TR/openannotation/ is the spec text, with /ns/openannotation# being the ontology URI. That would work. (again, hypothetically:-) Ivan > >> 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 18:44:56 UTC