I'd prefer internalIdentifier(), but uniqueReference() should be also fine so +1 from my side for both to the proposed timing and to the current content of pr #10
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]> wrote: > Great! So, just to keep the ball rolling, if I don't hear anything by > Tuesday night (2015-04-28), I shall merge in the latest > https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/pull/10 > as proposed on Friday. > > This would include renaming to `uniqueReference()` which I think > strikes a good balance of non-IRI-ness and non-local-identifier-ness. > > > > I just added a section about blank node to the user guide which can be > adapted either way: > > http://commonsrdf.incubator.apache.org/userguide.html#Blank_node > > > > On 24 April 2015 at 19:34, Sergio Fernández <[email protected]> wrote: > > If COMMONSRDF-6 evolves towards a general agreement, we can wait some > days > > more for 0.1-incubating release. > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> I would prefer to include the tidy-up text using "reference" as word > >> and avoid the current implementation specifics, but leave the actual > >> method renaming for later unless we get a quick agreement. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 23 April 2015 at 20:36, Sergio Fernández <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Sorry, language issue, I actually wanted to say something like: > >> > "when COMMONSRDF-6 will be resolved (...)" > >> > > >> > Either discuss a better naming and text or shift it for 0.2 are valid > >> > options. But clearly it's an aspect that requires further discussion, > and > >> > last minute changes could not get the required consensus. So I would > >> > personally prefer to keep it as it is for now, a resolve COMMONSRDF-6 > in > >> > the next release. > >> > > >> > What all the other people think? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 23/04/15 16:21, Sergio Fernández wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> 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 > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Sergio Fernández > >> > Partner Technology Manager > >> > Redlink GmbH > >> > m: +43 6602747925 > >> > e: [email protected] > >> > w: http://redlink.co > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Stian Soiland-Reyes > >> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) > >> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Sergio Fernández > > Partner Technology Manager > > Redlink GmbH > > m: +43 6602747925 > > e: [email protected] > > w: http://redlink.co > > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes > Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 > -- Sergio Fernández Partner Technology Manager Redlink GmbH m: +43 6602747925 e: [email protected] w: http://redlink.co
