Re: How about "identifying URL" instead of "canonical" URL?

This sounds odd to me. I'd rather we use primary, as suggested by Sandro.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com> wrote on 06/23/2014 08:19:06 AM:

> From: Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
> To: Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, 
> Date: 06/23/2014 08:30 AM
> Subject: How about "identifying URL" instead of "canonical" URL?
> 
> Regarding today's discussion about the ambiguity and possible 
> inaccurate nature of our use of the the term "canonical"...
> 
> How about "identifying" ?
> 
> Here's how it reads:
> 
> <section>
> <h3>Respond with identifying URLs and use them for identity 
comparison</h3>
> 
> <p>Clients can access an LDPR using multiple URLs. An LDPR server
> should respond to each of those requests using a single consistent
> URL, an <em>identifying</em> URL, for the LDPR. This identifying URL
> may be found
> in the response's Location and/or Content-Location headers, and
> potentially also in the representation of the LDPR. A common case is
> URLs that vary by protocol, one HTTP and one HTTPS, but are
> otherwise identical. In most cases those two URLs refer to the same
> resource, and the server should respond to requests on either URL
> with a single (identity) URL.</p>
> 
> <p>Clients should use the identifying URL as an LDPR's identity;
> for example, when determining if two URLs refer to the same resource
> clients should compare the identifying URLs, not the URLs used to
> access the resources.</p>
> 
> -- 
> Cody Burleson