- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 22:00:47 -0500
- To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- CC: Public RDF comments list <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi Guus, What is the nature of the pushback? It is nearly impossible to craft verbiage that is acceptable to all if I don't know what are the concerns. Thanks, David On 12/22/2013 01:45 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote: > David, > > I did a quick straw poll in the WG. Two people are in favor of the > change you propose, but there is also considerable push back. The > chairs see insufficient reason to reopen this editorial issue, taking > into account the extensive discussion that already took place. > > I'm still willing to see whether a statement in the spirit of your > comment can be added to the Primer, but that is all I can offer. > > Please let me know whether you can live with this response. If so, > please answer with [RESOLVED] in the subject line. > > Best, > Guus > > On 19-12-13 22:33, Guus Schreiber wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> I'm sorry it has gone this way. I don't like the fact that non-members >> cannot subscribe to a group's mailing list either (in earlier groups I >> chaired we had that mechanism, which was a big plus). But as a group we >> have no control over that. >> >> The fact that the issue was not discussed at some length during the last >> telecon is my doing as chair. Basically, we had an overfull agenda and >> for this issue there were already 60+ messages recorded. I felt we had >> reached the point were further discussion was not of much use. >> >> W.r.t. your petition: I will suggest to the WG to do a straw poll on >> this. >> >> Thanks for the time you invested in this. >> >> Best, >> Guus >> >> >> On 19-12-13 21:26, David Booth wrote: >>> On 12/18/2013 09:33 PM, David Booth wrote: >>>> On 12/18/2013 05:47 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote: >>>>> David, >>>>> >>>>> The RDF WG resolved today [1] ISSUE-148: >>>>> >>>> > Resolve ISSUE-148 by changing the "IRIs have global scope" >>>> > bullet point in section 1.3 in Concepts to "By design, >>>> > IRIs have global scope. Thus, two different appearances >>>> > of an IRI denote the same resource. Violating >>>> > this principle constitutes an IRI collision >>>> > [WEBARCH]." http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision >>>> > >>>> > We very much hope you can live with this outcome. It might >>>> > not be exactly what you wanted, but I hope it is at least >>>> > very close to it. >>>> >>>> Indeed, this is close, but it still does not address my concern, >>>> because it still says "two different appearances of an IRI >>>> denote the same resource" as though that is always true, in >>>> spite of fact that the next sentence acknowledges that this >>>> can be violated (though it gives no clue about how). >>>> >>>> I gather that someone didn't like the word "should" or the >>>> phrase "is intended to" that were proposed earlier. As a >>>> compromise, how about inserting "RDF assumes that": >>>> >>>> "By design, IRIs have global scope. Thus, RDF assumes >>>> that two different appearances of an IRI denote the same >>>> resource. Violating this principle constitutes an IRI >>>> collision [WEBARCH]." >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision >>>> >>>> David >>> >>> P.S. According to the meeting minutes, >>> http://www.w3.org/2013/12/18-rdf-wg-minutes.html#item05 >>> the WG **did not even consider** any wordings that would have fully >>> addressed the concern that caused me to raise this issue. The only two >>> options that were considered were *identical* in still having the >>> problem described above. >>> >>> I know it isn't easy to craft verbiage that is acceptable to many >>> different parties with different perspectives, and I have offered to >>> help do that. But the way the working group has handled this -- >>> simultaneously prohibiting discussion on the public-rdf-comments list >>> while also prohibiting non-member subscription to the working group >>> discussion list -- has left me only an extremely blunt instrument for >>> communicating with the working group. In essence, all I can do is raise >>> a formal objection. And friends, that's rather broken. It sure ain't >>> very efficient. >>> >>> This is the time to get this fixed. We should not go another 5 years >>> with wrong/misleading statements about the uniqueness of IRI reference, >>> leading new RDF users down a garden path only to be surprised and >>> disappointed later when merged graphs don't work as expected. One might >>> assume that, because this text is a non-normative introduction, it isn't >>> very important. But it *is* important because it affects how the reader >>> thinks about the whole specification. Readers need to know that URI >>> collisions can happen **even with RDF that is 100% compliant with the >>> RDF specification**. >>> >>> The currently adopted verbiage *almost* addresses my concern, because it >>> acknowledges that the principle of unique URI reference *can* be >>> violated. But alas, as currently phrased, readers are likely to assume >>> that such violations are violations of the RDF specifications, rather >>> than violations of a higher level architectural objective. Readers need >>> to know that RDF makes the *assumption* of unique URI reference, and >>> hence if this assumption is violated, there may be problems due to URI >>> collision. >>> >>> I have spent a *lot* of time over the past several years -- probably >>> *thousands* of hours cumulatively -- trying to get to the bottom of the >>> resource identity issue. In fact, I may have spent more time on this >>> issue than all other members of the RDF working group *combined*, >>> excluding Pat Hayes! But that is mere idle speculation. The point is >>> that although this may seem like a trivial issue to some, it is >>> important to me, as to my mind it ultimately underlies nearly >>> *everything* we do in the Semantic Web that we're trying to build. >>> >>> I have done my best to work as efficiently as possible with the RDF >>> working group -- moving lengthy discussions to other lists, trying hard >>> to reach common understanding with other individuals before proposing >>> fixes that might reach consensus, and offering to help craft acceptable >>> wording -- but as explained above, the constraints imposed by the >>> working group have made the process frustratingly difficult and awkward. >>> >>> So, I guess I will rephrase my suggestion above. Would anyone strongly >>> *object* to inserting "RDF assumes that" in the currently adopted bullet >>> phrasing, as described above? If so, why? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> David >>> >>> > > >
Received on Monday, 23 December 2013 03:01:16 UTC