Re: Using the W3C publication process vocabulary

While you're at it, would it make sense to add the OGP and Twitter meta-data for when specs are linked/shared using those services?

Full disclosure: I'm a W3C fellow, fully employed by Facebook and OGP was originally created at Facebook.

--tobie  


On Sunday, June 23, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote:

> Checking prefix.cc (http://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 (mailto: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 (tel:%2B31-641044153)
> > http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
>

Received on Sunday, 23 June 2013 13:34:45 UTC