RE: ACTION to integrate more refined view of non-resolvable URIs and linking

Jodi,

 

Thanks for the comments. Here's a diff that hopefully addresses these
issues:

 

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevant
_Technologies&diff=5763&oldid=5755

 

Let me know if more refinement is needed.

 

Jeff

 

From: Jodi Schneider [mailto:jodi.schneider@deri.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:02 AM
To: Young,Jeff (OR)
Cc: public-xg-lld
Subject: Re: ACTION to integrate more refined view of non-resolvable
URIs and linking

 

Hey Jeff,

 

A few quibbles...

 

-http or HTTP?

-The DBpedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBpedia>  resource for
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jane_Austen
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jane_Austen>  is a good example.

I would expect either "The DBpedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBpedia>  resource,
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jane_Austen
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jane_Austen>  , is a good example." or

"The DBpedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBpedia>  resource for Jane
Austen ( http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jane_Austen
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jane_Austen>  ) is a good example."

 

I'm still a little worried that people might not know what URIs are --
especially since you talk about non-http URIs:

"That uncertainty was the basis for inventing some new URI schemes like
URNs <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2141>  and "info" URIs
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4452> , but were eventually resolved by
RFC 3305 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3305>  and httpRange-14
<http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14> "

 

You seem to be specifically advocating (even non-resolveable) HTTP URIs,
as opposed to any URIs (including URNs). This is a little unclear -- as
is whether you continue to consider URNs and info URIs to be acceptable
(it would in fact be possible to read this and wonder whether those are
still URIs!)

 

-Jodi

 

On 12 Aug 2011, at 16:03, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:





I have this action:

ACTION: Jeff to integrate more refined view of
  non-resolvable URIs and linking. [recorded in
  [32]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/07/21-lld-minu
  tes.html#action08]

The updated wording can be reviewed here:

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevant
_Technologies&diff=5746&oldid=5294

I also removed the reference to bulk access because it didn't seem to
fit well under this heading. If somebody feels bulk delivery should be
included as part of "relevant technologies", I would be tempted to
create another small section and could try to explain why it's relevant.
Maybe this is done elsewhere, though.

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Jeff