W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

RE: Proposed resolution needed: ISSUE-148: IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:06:32 +0100
To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <015c01cefb20$6e0bb7b0$4a232710$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Monday, December 16, 2013 9:19 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> David, Markus, Richard,
> 
> Given the time frame we need to bring this discussion to an end. I hope
> that one of you  can make a proposal for a WG resolution for the
> telecon. Maybe not every consensus niche has been tried out yet, but we
> should be close enough to stop here.

OK, here's my proposal for the telecon tomorrow.

PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-148 by changing the "IRIs have global scope" bullet
point in section 1.3 in Concepts to "IRIs have global scope by definition.
Thus, two different appearances of an IRI identify the same resource. RDF is
based on this principle and violations of it might lead to inconsistencies
or interoperability problems."

A few remarks:

I don't care much whether we use denote or identify. According to Pat,
"identify" is technically more correct whereas Richard points out that
"denote" is more consistent with the rest of the section. I personally
prefer "identify" in this case because I believe that it is the term that's
best aligned with RFC3986/RC3987 and WEBARCH.

I changed "by design" to "by definition" to make clarify that this is what
the IRI spec (RFC3986/3987) says.

I avoided to use the term "URI collision" and link it to WEBARCH as I don't
think it adds much (and I don't want to suggest readers that early in the
document to dig through the http14 archives).



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 12:07:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 December 2013 12:07:09 UTC