Re: ACTION to integrate more refined view of non-resolvable URIs and linking

Jeff, regarding the bulk access paragraph, I kind of think it was
useful. The added value of providing dumps was mentionned as a benefit
of LD here at IFLA during a meeting.

 I agree with Jodi, the new wording regarding URIs is great.

Emma

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org> wrote:
> Wow! That's perfect Jeff -- really, really clear to me. :) -Jodi
> On 16 Aug 2011, at 16:37, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>
> Jodi,
>
> Thanks for the comments. Here’s a diff that hopefully addresses these
> issues:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevant_Technologies&diff=5763&oldid=5755
>
> Let me know if more refinement is needed.
>
> Jeff
>
> From: Jodi Schneider [mailto:jodi.schneider@deri.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:02 AM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: public-xg-lld
> Subject: Re: ACTION to integrate more refined view of non-resolvable URIs
> and linking
>
> Hey Jeff,
>
> A few quibbles...
>
> -http or HTTP?
> -The DBpedia resource for http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jane_Austen is a good
> example.
> I would expect either
> "The DBpedia resource, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jane_Austen , is a good
> example." or
> "The DBpedia resource for Jane Austen
> ( http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jane_Austen ) is a good example."
>
> I'm still a little worried that people might not know what URIs are --
> especially since you talk about non-http URIs:
> "That uncertainty was the basis for inventing some new URI schemes
> like URNs and "info" URIs, but were eventually resolved by RFC
> 3305 and httpRange-14"
>
> You seem to be specifically advocating (even non-resolveable) HTTP URIs, as
> opposed to any URIs (including URNs). This is a little unclear -- as is
> whether you continue to consider URNs and info URIs to be acceptable (it
> would in fact be possible to read this and wonder whether those are still
> URIs!)
>
> -Jodi
>
> On 12 Aug 2011, at 16:03, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>
> I have this action:
>
> ACTION: Jeff to integrate more refined view of
>   non-resolvable URIs and linking. [recorded in
>   [32]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/07/21-lld-minu
>   tes.html#action08]
>
> The updated wording can be reviewed here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevant
> _Technologies&diff=5746&oldid=5294
>
> I also removed the reference to bulk access because it didn't seem to
> fit well under this heading. If somebody feels bulk delivery should be
> included as part of "relevant technologies", I would be tempted to
> create another small section and could try to explain why it's relevant.
> Maybe this is done elsewhere, though.
>
> Comments and suggestions are welcome.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 11:20:08 UTC