W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > August 2011

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

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:37:25 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590D7986ED@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Jodi Schneider" <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Cc: "public-xg-lld" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>


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




Let me know if more refinement is needed.




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>  is a good example.

I would expect either "The DBpedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBpedia>  resource,
<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!)




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

The updated wording can be reviewed here:


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.


Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 15:37:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 16 August 2011 15:37:56 GMT