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: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:26:02 +0100
To: <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Cc: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01cb01cdf40e$8f5256f0$adf704d0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
We had a short discussion about this in the RDF WG's telecon today and there
was no objection on using the term "IRI" as that's what other specifications
produced by the RDF WG use. I'll therefore close ISSUE-205.

If someone provides concrete text to add as editorial note explaining the
reasoning for using the term IRI (and the difference to the term URL) I
would be happy to add it.


Thanks,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Lanthaler [mailto:markus.lanthaler@gmx.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:15 PM
> To: 'Markus Lanthaler'; 'Pat Hayes'
> Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org; 'RDF WG'
> Subject: RE: Intent to close ISSUE-205
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 16 January 2013 17:26:32 GMT

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