On 23/04/15 16:21, Sergio Fernández wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Andy Seaborne<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 23/04/15 09:08, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>
>>* COMMONSRDF-6 is the most important issue to address before the release,
>>and personally I'm happy with the current proposal from Stian. Any other
>>opinion?
>>
>
>I don't like making last-minute changes on such a sensitive area,
>
>Full comments made on COMMONSRDF-6
>TL;DR; Suggested rename: internalIdentifier() -> reference()
For me it' s fine to wait some more time and get a consensus on the name.
I'll discuss the issue in a particular thread.
With COMMONSRDF-6 resolved we' d be ready to release.
Declaring COMMONSRDF-6 resolved at the last minute is what I think is a
bad idea.
The current text is using the word/concept of "identifier" in two
different ways. The qualified text is reasonable (if you know the
answer!) but I remain unconvinced that adjacent uses is helpful or the
new split of class/factory text works (see suggestion on JIRA) ; I want
to take time over reviewing changes and suggesting more but not to let
that stop a release.
Let's leave this open across the release with no more than our "best"
approximation for now (AKA what happens to be in the codebase at the
release point).
Andy
