W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2011

Re: naive question: why prefer absolute URIs to # URIs for linked data?

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:19:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CACHXnar2wZ4XgdNa-Z5BuZmu8VdStg17fMDp6z7is3O=n-jnhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen
<kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/11 7:33 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>> So I can safely conclude:
>>> >
>>> >  1. resource -- distraction.
>> I think it is; whether you agree is up to you, and I can't vouch for
>> your safety if you do.
>>> >  2. non information resource -- distraction.
>> Similarly.
>>> >  3. information resource -- a distraction that's on its way out?
>> I don't think any of us can predict what's on its way in or out.
>> Personally I'm not keen on the expression, however.
> Remember, I really posted with glossary completion in mind. My opinions re.
> resource, information resource, and non information resources are public
> knowledge. My responses above simply sought clarification of your comments.
> That's it.

Perhaps I misunderstood "on its way out" - out of what? I read this as
out of web architecture, but if you meant "on its way out of the
document", you are right. If I have time I'll try to rewrite without
"information resource"... although more likely I'll attempt this in
some new document (like the working draft I'm supposed to be
preparing). If it turns out for expository purposes it is better to
have a name for the category, I may or may not use that term,
depending on what seems to resonate best with readers.

> Re. my personal opinion, which isn't a secret: I think they are all broken.
> I prefer terminology from the broader realm of computer science. Again, I am
> expressing this opinion *right now* because you seem to be making
> assumptions about my opinions :-)

Oh good, we're in agreement that all the terms are broken.

I think this is a good reason to not use them, and then to omit any or
all from the glossary.

Does that sound good to you?

Maybe there could be a separate section: "How the terms used in this
document relate to seemingly related terms you may have seen
elsewhere". My worry is that it such a section would make the document
more confusing, not less. But will take advice.

Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 20:20:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:40 UTC