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

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:01 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 12/17/13 7:06 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Are you sure that Pat preferred "identify" over "denote" as you've
> presented above?

That's at least how I understood [1]:

[[[
Part of the problem is the use of the technical word "denote" here. Why not
use  the mealy-mouth word "meaning": two different appearances of an IRI
have identical meanings. That is technically correct, even if it is a bit
blurrier, because a 'meaning' can indeed be a way of referring ambiguously.
Actually I like this now I have thought of it. (Another option, closer to
this present wording, is to use "identify" rather than "denote".)
]]]

... but I'm sure Pat won't hesitate to tell us if he's misquoted :-)


[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Dec/0091.html



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler