W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > January 2013

RE: Intent to close ISSUE-205

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:15:06 +0100
To: "'Markus Lanthaler'" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: <public-linked-json@w3.org>, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <022d01cdf343$dece8fd0$9c6baf70$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
I've now reverted the change [1]. The specs now use the term IRI (again).
I'll leave ISSUE-205 open till tomorrow to give anyone a chance to oppose to
this change.


[1]
https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/commit/8fc925daf53abc166199814e31ed3a
23e03b32a5


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Lanthaler [mailto:markus.lanthaler@gmx.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:16 PM
> To: 'Pat Hayes'
> Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org; 'RDF WG'
> Subject: RE: Intent to close ISSUE-205
> 
> Point taken :-) We just revisited the issue in today's telecon and
> reverted
> the decision:
> 
> RESOLVED: Use IRI in the JSON-LD specifications instead of URL.
> 
> I will send out another notification after updating the spec.
> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:27 PM
> > To: Markus Lanthaler
> > Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org; 'RDF WG'
> > Subject: Re: Intent to close ISSUE-205
> >
> > Revolutionary though it may seem, I would suggest, when writing a Web
> > standard, to actually use the terminology defined by other normative
> > Web standards. That is, if you mean IRI, say "IRI", and if you mean
> > URL, say "URL". To do otherwise is at best confusing, and at worst so
> > bloody stupid that it is impossible to even discuss it politely.
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > On Jan 15, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> >
> > >> I propose that, in the same spirit, we redefine "resolution" to
> mean
> > >> "masturbate", but go on using "resolution" as it is more polite.
> > >
> > > I think I will continue to use "resolution" :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >> PS. If you wish, you may take this to be an objection, but as I
> have
> > >> already redefined "objection" to mean "eats spaghetti on
> > Wednesdays",
> > >> it will not really make a great deal of difference.
> > >
> > > Hmm... what would you propose as alternative? Keep using "IRI"? Use
> > "JSON-LD
> > > URL"? Talk about "links" instead and in the few places it actually
> > matters
> > > use IRI? Use a different term altogether?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Markus Lanthaler
> > > @markuslanthaler
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494
> 3973
> > 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> > Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> > FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >
> >
> >
> 
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 17:15:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:53 GMT