RE: Data Identification section (was Re: reviewing the BP doc)

Annette,

We should just use URL, the subset of URI with a network location mechanism. We *cannot* redefine term such URL and we must just point to the source specifications: we cannot break the existing specifications.

I agree that the document is getting to long and hence the proposition to separate the identification: it is easier to produce and consume.

Regards
Tomas


From: Annette Greiner [amgreiner@lbl.gov]

Sent: 12 August 2015 20:11

To: Phil Archer

Cc: CARRASCO BENITEZ Manuel (DGT); public-dwbp-wg@w3.org

Subject: Re: Data Identification section (was Re: reviewing the BP doc)








On Aug 12, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:





* ?R?

URI, URL, URN, IRI. Just use URI everywhere and add something like:



  "In this specification, the term URI is used for the identification schemes: URI, URL, URN and IRI ..."



This is line with the recommendation in RFC3986

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-1.1.3



  " ... Future specifications and related documentation should use the general term "URI" rather than the more restrictive terms "URL" and "URN" ..."



But
 we *want* to be restrictive. We're only talking about HTTP URIs, we're not talking about URNs, or even URLs. Hence I think we need to say something, no?




Funny, I take the fact that we want to be restricted to discussing URIs as a reason *not* to add a discussion about them vs. URNs or URLs. The fact that we use a term in our document doesn’t mean that we have to define it. It is defined elsewhere in W3C
 space plenty. Our document is already annoyingly long; let’s help readers get to what is helpful information and leave out discussion that is not unique to publishing data on the web.




--

Annette Greiner

NERSC Data and Analytics Services

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

510-495-2935

Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 09:02:49 UTC