W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: Suggestion for next round of model theory document

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 15:45:00 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIEEICCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Graham:
>>[[[
>>For the purposes of this document, the term <dfn>URI</dfn> is used to
>>mean an absolute URI with an optional fragment identifier.
>>]]]
Aaron:
>Please, if
>we're going to be using something else, let's call it something else.


Both solutions are unpleasant :(; either 'ad hoc' redefinitions or 'ad hoc'
additional vocabulary.

I don't think there's another way - oh the humpty dumpty one or meaning
something different without saying so - I guess that's worse than either of
your suggestions.

I will concur with whatever everyone else thinks on this one; but would
point out that it is standard technical practice to take a vague word (like
'URI') and limit its vagueness for the scope of some discussion. The problem
with graham's suggestion is that some people think that 'URI' is not a vague
word, but has a precise meaning defined by RFC2396 (as modified by RFC
2732).

What about using lower case uri i.e.
>>[[[
>>For the purposes of this document, the term <dfn>uri</dfn> is used to
>>mean an absolute URI with an optional fragment identifier.
>>]]]
or Uri?
Aaron gets his two words (differing only by case) and we don't confuse the
reader with yet more terminology.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 10:45:25 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:40:56 EDT