Re: URIs in data primer draft updated & httpRange-14 background

Hi Markus,

On 8 Mar 2013, at 11:04, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
> Just some minor comments. I think example 4 would be clearer if it would
> include a link to the image itself (just as most landing do). Something
> like:
> 
> {
>  "@id": "http://photo.example.com/psd/12345",
>  "type": "image",
>  "creator": "Paul Downey",
>  "license": "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
>  "url": "http://photo.example.com/psd/12345/original.jpeg"
> }
> 
> Or explain why it isn't there. You talk about this in ection 4.3 but I think
> almost everyone will wonder why it isn't done already at this point.

I've added this in the latest editor's draft at:

  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/urls-in-data/

> I would also suggest to change the name to Paul S. Downey since you are
> using "psd" in your URIs.. otherwise every graphic designer will think of
> Photoshop files :-)

I think I'll live with that :)

> The note under example 4 is a bit confusing IMHO. You could argue that if
> the image itself can be retrieved at http://photo.example.com/psd/12345,
> then that URI *is* identifying the image. The JSON would just be a different
> representation of the same resource.

Jonathan already picked this up, and David Booth discussed it too. I've expanded the note slightly to make the point that the image and the page have very different properties and therefore are different resources. Let me know whether you think that addresses your concern.

> Not sure about this one but isn't a "URI property" a "identifier property"?
> Without context, I would interpret the term "URI property" as "every
> property whose value is an URI"... which then becomes confusing in section
> 4.1

I'm not sure what to do about this one. I've tried hard to avoid words like 'identify' within the body of this document because it tends to lead people into a rathole about identity. Jonathan is more sensitive to this than I am, so I'll follow his lead on it. I haven't made any change for now (in the editor's draft above, which will be published as First Public Working Draft) but will take this as a comment on the FPWD.

> s/photograph of his poster had/photograph of this poster had/

Fixed.

> This is a really great summary almost everyone would understand. Awesome
> work!


Thank you :) And thanks for the comments.

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

Received on Saturday, 27 April 2013 15:39:08 UTC