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

Emma,

I created a new section for discrete/bulk access and recovered/edited some of the previous text. Here's the diff:

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevant_Technologies&diff=5774&oldid=5763

Let me know if it needs more refinement.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: manue.fig@gmail.com [mailto:manue.fig@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Emmanuelle Bermes
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 7:20 AM
> To: Jodi Schneider
> Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); public-xg-lld
> Subject: 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_Relevan
> t_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_Relevan
> t
> > _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 13:22:21 UTC