- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:30:45 +0100
- To: Manuel CARRASCO-BENITEZ <Manuel.CARRASCO-BENITEZ@ec.europa.eu>
- Cc: public-dwbp-wg <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi, Some initial comments based on a brief review. I see Mark Harrison has already noted the name clash with CURIE. Based on the working group charter I had assumed that the working group would be publishing guidance on creating and maintaining persistent URIs and URI schemes that covered similar topics to the UK and Australian guidance [1, 2] and RFC 7320 [3]. The URI Design and Ownership draft is also relevant [4] (particularly with respect to some of my comments below). Is that material to be covered elsewhere? It would be really useful to see some of the existing deployed guidance generalised into reusable best practices relevant to data on the web. However this document profiles existing standards (HTTP, URIs, etc) by limiting, e.g. length/format of domain names, legal characters in URIs, etc. In practice, these might be useful things to do and something to consider when designing a URI scheme, but I'm not sure its correct to mandate a single approach complete with conformance requirements. Some specific questions: * Why is URI length the overriding design characteristic? * Why are longer domain names "bad"? * Why must the path only have a single component? Plenty of existing, stable URI schemes have longer paths * Why must language codes be given using a dotted extension? * Why must URIs only contain ASCII characters? RDF 1.1 was recently updated to use IRIs which has a larger repertoire of characters * Why use specific reserved parameters, rather than existing mechanisms, e.g. HEAD, OPTIONS, HTTP headers to communicate metadata? * Why the recommendation to use file URIs for data to be published to the web? I don't think the distinction between static/dynamic data belongs here anyway. As it stands this specification looks like it would declare rather a lot of existing well-maintained and well-designed URI schemes as "invalid". Cheers, L. [1]. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/designing-uri-sets-for-the-uk-public-sector [2]. https://github.com/AGLDWG/TR/wiki/URI-Guidelines-for-publishing-linked-datasets-on-data.gov.au-v0.1 [3]. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7320.txt [4]. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-05 On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:44 PM, <Manuel.CARRASCO-BENITEZ@ec.europa.eu> wrote: > Dear all, > > I changed the name of the draft from > Old : Best Practice for Web Data URI (DAURI) > New : Compact Uniform Resource Identifier (CURI) > > It is at > http://dragoman.org/curi > > A copy for the people having problems reading dragoman at > https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/site/med/dragoman/curi > > CURI must be considered a new version of DAURI. The name change is to better reflect the "compact" (term copied from RFC3986) aspect over the "data" aspect, though the data requirements must be fully supported. I will continue to work and the objective is to have the First Public Working Draft by the 30 September 2014. I will change our wiki pages and load it to Github when appropriate. > > Regards > Tomas > > -- Leigh Dodds Freelance Technologist Open Data, Linked Data Geek t: @ldodds w: ldodds.com e: leigh@ldodds.com
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2014 15:31:15 UTC