W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Using the W3C publication process vocabulary

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:10:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CADjV5jd2Z+LRO66awbW+WhXyNwUqEjkrj+si+3cXqqUFxvAd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Checking prefix.cc:

* w3p: common for <http://prov4j.org/w3p/> and <http://purl.org/provenance/>
* rec: common for <http://purl.org/ontology/rec/core#>
* tr: no usage reported.

Cheers,
Niklas



On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> > On 06/23/2013 07:27 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> >> The RDF file that are used internally usually use the 'rec' prefix for
> this one.
> >> But, well, *shrug*, that is not a strong argument...
> >
> > Why not "tr:" then?
>
> Works for me, too.
>
> Ivan
>
> >
> > Alexandre.
> >
> >>
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >> Shane McCarron wrote:
> >>> In order to enhance the RDFa support in ReSpec, I am going to include
> an
> >>> indication of the specification status using the vocabulary
> >>> at http://www.w3.org/2001/02pd/rec54 - see
> http://www.w3.org/2001/02pd/rec54.n3
> >>> if you want to view one version.
> >>>
> >>> My plan is to use the prefix 'w3p' for this unless there is an
> existing commonly
> >>> used prefix for this vocabulary.  If anyone has an opinion on this,
> please don't
> >>> hesitate to chime in.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Shane P. McCarron
> >>> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
>
Received on Sunday, 23 June 2013 13:11:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:18 UTC