Re: Exploring the change from Ref to Uri

Hello Martin,

Martin Duerst wrote:
> I agree with Felix (and others). On top of that, I hope that
> ITS actually uses IRIs, not URIs, in which case the name SomethingUri
> may actually be more confusing than helpful.
> 
> [In the case that ITS only uses URIs and does not allow IRIs,
> that would be a serious mistake that should be fixed quickly.]

yes!

Regards, Felix

> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> At 00:00 06/07/26, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> Hi Yves, all,
>>
>> I'm not sure if the change really makes things clearer. Looking at other
>> vocabularies which require an URI data type, I don't find one with the
>> *name* "URI". For example, HTML has the href attribute, XLink as well, ...
>>
>> should we really name the attributes after their data type, or isn't
>> naming after their function the common way? I am not sure if the term
>> URI is common enough for that purpose.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>
>>
>> Yves Savourel wrote:
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> My action item
>>> _http://www.w3.org/2006/07/24-i18nits-minutes.html#action05_ was to look
>>> at the possibility of renaming of all our 'xyzRef' and 'xyzRefPointer'
>>> to 'xyzUri' and 'xyzUriPointer'.
>>>
>>> This was a thought from Christian to clarify better the value held by
>>> the "Ref" attributes when we looked at the isssue #3494 during today's
>>> call (_http://www.w3.org/2006/07/24-i18nits-minutes.html#item06_).
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Rational:
>>>
>>> The content/values of the nodes pointed by all xyzRef attributes are
>>> always URI. We might as well make this clear by using 'Uri' in the name
>>> of the attributes. Using the more generic 'Ref' could possibly lead to
>>> thinking that other types of value (e.g. an ID) could be used.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Things we would have to rename:
>>>
>>> locNoteRef                      ->      locNoteUri
>>> locNoteRefPointer               ->      locNoteUriPointer
>>> termInfoRef                     ->      termInfoUri
>>> termInfoRefPointer      ->      termInfoUriPointer
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Pros:
>>>
>>> - More specific, and therefore clearer.
>>> - Last chance to make that change.
>>> - It would be consistant with uri in <its:ns> where we call the URI 'uri'.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Cons:
>>>
>>> - May could be seen as a substantive change by some(?)
>>> - Lot of references and examples, to change.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Personnal opinion:
>>>
>>> I would think it's probably a good idea to change the attribute names
>>> from 'Ref' to 'Uri'.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -yves
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
>> Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
>> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iD8DBQFExjIacU6f2Avofx4RAq9ZAJ90BQa2V3rf0R3OcceWIW2qiEdFZQCgzADA
>> MYLo7bHOb2N9lmGg8ecrK1k=
>> =7qyp
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     
>