RE: Use machine-readable standardized data formats / Use non-proprietary data formats

Makx,

* Find vs. locate
You are correct: I should have use the term "locate". I did not use the term "find" as synonymous of "search". To put in context:

"The term "Uniform Resource Locator" (URL) refers to the subset of URIs that, in addition to identifying a resource, provide a means of locating the resource by describing its primary access mechanism (e.g., its network "location")."

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-1.1.3


* URL vs. URI
I agree that for the majority of the people is irrelevant: we are from the few people that this is relevant :-).

Naming and defining concepts is a central part of a specification. It might look nit–picking, but it is the nature of the work.

Regards
Tomas



-----Original Message-----
From: Makx Dekkers [mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 10:46 AM
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Use machine-readable standardized data formats / Use non-proprietary data formats

Tomas,

> * Identification
> The first step to get the data is to find it: this is more complex that it
seems.
> Some aspects: length, direct (without content negotiation), resource,
variant,
> and granularity. Hence the reason for COMURI
>   http://dragoman.org/comuri
> 

Finding and identifying are two separate issues. You find data through
search engines indexing landing pages or through aggregators harvesting and
indexing metadata, then you access it through the URL that you get in the
search results.

When I search and then find some interesting resource, I am not really
concerned how the URL looks; I am just interested that the URL works and I
get the resource when I click the URL.

And I argued in earlier discussions that how a URI/URL looks is mostly
irrelevant: very few people will look at them and even fewer people will
type them in. Most people just click or cut and paste.

Makx.

Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 09:38:07 UTC