RE: request for verification: paging in TPF

On 5 Nov 2015 at 23:07, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>> I find this clear but a bit clumsy.
> 
> I agree about clumsy.
> It's hard to strike a balance between clarity and exactness.
> 
> For instance, do we need "_directly_ following" or not?
> For sure, everybody assumes this implicitly,
> but technically, page 4 also follows page 1, just not directly.
> 
> I like the advice by Manu Sporny in hist post about the JSON-LD spec [1],
> but I've not been able to obtain it yet in the current document.
> 
>> What about something along the lines of
>> this
>> 
>>   If there exists a page following the current page, it MUST be
>>   referenced from the current page using hydra:next. A page referenced
>>   by hydra:next SHOULD NOT be empty.
>> Still needs some wordsmithing but I think the gist is clear.
> 
> Maybe we can still do simpler, more instructive. Just trying:
> 
>     The page MUST link to the next page using hydra:next,
>     unless the next page would be empty (then it SHOULD NOT be linked).
> I think that goes into the right direction. Correct, concise, clear.

I like that. Another minor tweak

    The page MUST use hydra:next to reference the next page. If the next
page
    would be (is?) empty, however, it SHOULD NOT be referenced.


>> Should we
>> really talk about pages here? What about talking about fragments, partial
>> fragments, fragment views or something similar instead?
> 
> I think pages is the simplest. They are really pages for me.

Yeah I understand. I just saw all the confusion about "pages" we had in the
core vocab and think we should try to establish a shared terminology across
our specifications.


> [1] http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 22:17:27 UTC