use tag uris for vocabularies #889
Conversation
|
YIKES, this totally a non trivial change. |
|
what's wrong with this issue? do I need to open one without a diff attached for some reason? I didn't expect this to just be merged, I opened it for discussion. obviously it's not trivial. |
|
This isn't an issue, it's a pull request. A pull request DOES signify "I want to merge this". It can even have a linked issue. |
|
github treats pull request as an issue with commits attached (that's probably oversimplifying, but I do know you can transform an issue into a pull request by attaching a branch to it). but that's not an argument I'm here to have. I will open an issue without the attached commit. |
|
Github has just announced that it's now possible to convert a pull request to 'draft' status, which prevents it from being merged, and is useful for posting code for review/discussion: https://github.blog/changelog/2020-04-08-convert-pull-request-to-draft/ |
|
It's often the case that "http" and "https" schemes are used for URIs, even though not retrievable. Yes, they look like URLs, but it's a common practice, unfortunately. I think this PR is very forward-looking. :) I wonder where the "tag:" scheme concept will head into the future... Some references, for convenience: |
this follows #874 (which is included in the diff).
instead of using a transport protocol for vocabularies, which have no document to transport, why not use a uri that is simply an identifier? the tag URI seems like it was built for this. (I think most of the json schema members are familiar, but a tag URI is described at taguri.org, wikipedia, its RFC.)
this would help alleviate confusion on the part of people looking for retrievable resources at vocabulary URIs (#815).