W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Intent to close ISSUE-205

From: Conal Tuohy <conal.tuohy@versi.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:05:06 +1000
Message-ID: <50F56212.30704@versi.edu.au>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 15/01/13 23:32, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> Hmm... what would you propose as alternative? Keep using "IRI"? Use "JSON-LD
> URL"? Talk about "links" instead and in the few places it actually matters
> use IRI? Use a different term altogether?
I do take the point that some people in the target developer community 
may not be familiar with the term "IRI", but IMHO this should be dealt 
with by linking to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987, and if necessary 
including an explanation of the relationship between IRIs and URIs in 
the spec. I would say that in any formal spec there will be terms which 
are unfamiliar to some readers, and the appropriate way to mitigate that 
is to use terms consistently and to include or refer to clear and 
explicit definitions. I don't think it's too much to ask JSON-LD 
developers to understand what an IRI is; if they are going to conflate 
IRIs and URLs, aren't they going to make mistakes in practice?

I would consider myself a web developer (though not primarily a 
Javascript developer), and for me personally, understanding terms like 
"IRI" is not a challenge. The challenge for me in reading the JSON-LD 
spec has been in trying to understand it in terms of the RDF model 
(which I do understand). Thats where redefinition of terms would 
actually make that more challenging.

Conal Tuohy
HuNI <http://huni.net.au/> Technical Coordinator 
Victorian eResearch Strategic Initiative 
Skype: conal.tuohy
Twitter: @conal_tuohy <https://twitter.com/conal_tuohy>
Mobile: +61-466324297 <tel:+61-466324297>
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 14:05:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:35 UTC