> On 13 May 2016, at 19:07, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
>
> On 05/10/2016 02:11 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> On 2016/05/10 01:37, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>>
>>> In the Web Annotation model we also refer to W3C specifications' URIs
>>> as a
>>> means of identifying the URI fragment rules that they maintain.
>>> For example, we currently recommend the URI "
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/" as a way to say "this fragment
>>> conforms
>>> to the rules of the media fragments specification".
>>> You can see the table here:
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#fragment-selector
>>>
>>> I believe that this would also fall under the change to use https rather
>>> than http URIs, correct?
>>>
>>> As we intend to go to CR in the next few weeks, would the
>>> recommendation be
>>> to change to https now in advance?
>>
>> To me, this usage feels close to namespaces in functionality, so it may
>> be worth discussing whether this can be treated the same way.
>
> If the linked data community wishes to have a discussion on the namespace policy, they can certainly do so. The fact is that we can't change deployed namespaces due to lack of consensus and tooling. In addition, we don't seem to create new ones nowadays anyway.
That is not really true. 'Namespace', though incorrectly, is often used as a term for vocabularies, which are still regularly defined (hence the question of Rob for annotations), as well as context files for JSON-LD terms which, though not 'namespaces' by any means, may have a similar issues.
Ivan
> I'm not convinced that linking the two changes together would bring a predictable timed outcome.
>
> Philippe
>
----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704