RE: URIs in data primer draft updated & httpRange-14 background

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:39 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2013, at 11:04, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > The note under example 4 is a bit confusing IMHO. You could argue
> that if
> > the image itself can be retrieved at
> http://photo.example.com/psd/12345,
> > then that URI *is* identifying the image. The JSON would just be a
> different
> > representation of the same resource.
> 
> Jonathan already picked this up, and David Booth discussed it too. I've
> expanded the note slightly to make the point that the image and the
> page have very different properties and therefore are different
> resources. Let me know whether you think that addresses your concern.

It's definitely clearer now. I think by changing

   If the URL http://photo.example.com/psd/12345 supported content
negotiation such that a request with Accept: text/html ***provided an HTML
page*** but a request with Accept: image/jpeg returned the image

to

   If the URL http://photo.example.com/psd/12345 supported content
negotiation such that a request with Accept: text/html returned the landing
page in HTML but a request with Accept: image/jpeg returned the image

would make it crystal clear.


> > Not sure about this one but isn't a "URI property" a "identifier
> property"?
> > Without context, I would interpret the term "URI property" as "every
> > property whose value is an URI"... which then becomes confusing in
> section
> > 4.1
> 
> I'm not sure what to do about this one. I've tried hard to avoid words
> like 'identify' within the body of this document because it tends to
> lead people into a rathole about identity. Jonathan is more sensitive
> to this than I am, so I'll follow his lead on it. I haven't made any
> change for now (in the editor's draft above, which will be published as
> First Public Working Draft) but will take this as a comment on the
> FPWD.

I understand. Still, when I hear "URL property" I interpret that as "a
property whose value is a URL". Maybe using "entity URL" instead would make
it clearer!? Dunno 

I also just saw that you use the "UR_L_ property" in the text but "UR_I_
property" in Fig. 1.


Cheers,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Friday, 3 May 2013 08:17:57 UTC