RE: Intent to close ISSUE-205

OK, we have a telecon [1] in about 50 minutes (open for everyone). Lets
revisit this issue.

Thanks for the feedback,
Markus


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2013Jan/0020.html


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler



-------- Original Message --------
From: Conal Tuohy [mailto:conal.tuohy@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Conal Tuohy
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:05 PM
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
Subject: Re: Intent to close ISSUE-205

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 Technical Coordinator
Victorian eResearch Strategic Initiative
Skype: conal.tuohy
Twitter: @conal_tuohy
Mobile: +61-466324297

Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 14:13:47 UTC