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

Wow! That's perfect Jeff -- really, really clear to me. :) -Jodi

On 16 Aug 2011, at 16:37, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:

> 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 resource for http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jane_Austen is a good example.
> I would expect either "The DBpedia resource, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jane_Austen , is a good example." or
> "The DBpedia resource for 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 and "info" URIs, but were eventually resolved by RFC 3305 and 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>