- From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:26:53 -0400
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFE7753266.3134AEC2-ON85257D02.004BC530-85257D02.004F5ECC@us.ibm.com>
> URIs denote things. They refer to things. They don't identify things, implicitly. > Denotation is not the same thing as Identification. That's clearly understood and reflected in RDF and related AWWW documents. Citation(s) please? I'll note up front, having just searched, that "denote" occurs exactly zero times in [1]. Section 2.2 [2] even names a Constraint "URIs Identify a Single Resource ", which on the surface appears to contradict your response. The "denot" (sic - searched for the root in both documents) count is 3 in RFC 3986 [3], none of which are definitional; the variations on "identif" are (predictably) more common, with section 1.1 containing an entire paragraph (under the "heading" *Identifier*). Looking at RDF Semantics [4] and the David Booth thread [5], "denote" vs "identify" is covered in [4] section 4, "denote" is an RDF-specific layer that nets out to "denote" = "identify" + "interpretation", or more specifically "RDF-denote" = "WebArch-identify" + "RDF-interpretation". Keeping in mind that the LDP WG is about evenly divided between people whose natural habitat is "REST" (but most can spell RDF) and those ... "RDF" (most of whom can spell REST/HTTP), it might be we have another case where it's tricky to get everyone understanding things equally because of our differing backgrounds. What's "clearly understood" in one context has proven in the past to sometimes be "new news" in the other over the short history of this WG. That distinction might also lead people to lean one way vs another when it comes to choosing which terminology to re-use. Since an LDPR might (or might not) be an LDP-RS, and the subject discussion is about LDPRs in general (not the smaller class of LDP-RS's), people might be understandably reluctant to apply RDF-specific terminology (no matter how well-defined) in contexts that are not RDF-specific. Or not; that's why we have discussion lists. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986 [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/ [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0096.html Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 14:27:31 UTC