some comments on the DWBP draft


some comments on the current DWBP draft:

- "Best Practice 14: Provide data in multiple formats" might want to say 
if that should be done by different URIs, or one URI and HTTP conneg. 
that's a very typical question publishers have, so it should be 
mentioned at the very least, even if the answer is "we have no specific 
recommendation either way".

- "Best Practice 14: Provide data in multiple formats" should say that 
for fragment identifiers to be consistent across formats, care is needed 
to make sure that this is the case (as much as possible, depending on 
the formats and their features).

- generally speaking, i am wondering why the terms hypertext or 
hypermedia are not even mentioned in the spec. isn't that what data on 
the web ideally should be, linkable and linked? and are core principles for 
good web data. *linkable* means more than just URIs. it also means, for 
example, to provide meaningful and robust fragment identifiers for 
others to link to. *linked* means to use URIs and to specifically avoid 
other kinds of (often non-globally scoped) identifiers, so that links 
don't break when taken out of context.

- best practices 24 and 27 kind of conflict. one important idea of REST 
is to avoid versioning, and having versioned URIs is a pretty certain 
sign of bad design smell when it comes to media types and API design.

- regarding best practice 30, i am wondering if 
is something that might be worth mentioning in some form. this is 
currently a pre-I-D draft, but maybe the general idea of communicating 
resource availability is relevant for DWBP?

thanks and cheers,


erik wilde |  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | |

Received on Friday, 26 June 2015 01:07:17 UTC