- From: Simon Cox via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 05 May 2018 09:03:02 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> I still disagree. We're haggling over a URI, accessURL versus accessService; in my mind, URIs are basically opaque strings Yes, we are haggling over a URI (though maybe a little more to it - see below) > changing the URI to something that we find more elegant just for the sake of it is creating confusion where none is necessary. I am concerned about who will be confused. I'm focussing more on the future market. And while it is in principle the case that definitions trump names (your argument about URI opacity) we also know that in practice we shouldn't expect people to read the documentation. Good names make things easier. However, looking harder at the definition you quoted above, I wonder if in fact, the definition of `accessURL` is _broader_ than what is needed for `accessService` ? In which case I would withdraw my proposal to deprecate accessURL, and rather just add `accessService` as a specialization or sub-property, with the definition "_A service that gives access to the distribution of the dataset_" -- GitHub Notification of comment by dr-shorthair Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/124#issuecomment-386791376 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2018 09:03:04 UTC