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

Re: New Specification Published!

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 19:44:27 +0100
Message-Id: <3A7D72BE-02AA-4742-B512-0705430E4EC9@w3.org>
Cc: James Smith <jgsmith@gmail.com>, "public-openannotation@w3.org" <public-openannotation@w3.org>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>

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

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