- From: John Walker <john.walker@semaku.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:43:11 +0100 (CET)
- To: public-linked-data-fragments@w3.org, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Message-ID: <307058995.406871.1446799391265.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxweb05.eigbox.net>
Hi, > On November 5, 2015 at 11:16 PM Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> > wrote: > > > 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. > So to deconstruct this a little, you are in effect saying: a. If there is a next page, the current page MUST use hydra:next to reference the next page b. The first page of a fragment MAY be empty c. Subsequent pages SHOULD NOT be empty Where by 'empty' we mean that the page contains zero data triples. > > >> 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 > > John
Received on Friday, 6 November 2015 08:43:45 UTC