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

Re: ISSUE-148: RDF Concepts - IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 21:59:54 -0500
Message-ID: <52AD1B2A.2070603@dbooth.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>


On 12/14/2013 01:53 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Possible wording compromise....
>
> On Dec 14, 2013, at 8:26 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Markus,
>>
>> On 12/14/2013 07:04 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>> David,
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 14, 2013 4:12 AM, David Booth wrote:
>>>> . . .   But to later *explicitly* claim that "IRIs
>>>> have global scope: Two different appearances of an IRI denote the
>>>> same resource" seems too harmfully misleading to me.
>>>
>>> What if we would spell out some consequences of IRIs that denote multiple things. Something like
>>>
>>>    1.3 The Referent of an IRI
>>>
>>>    [...]
>>>
>>>    Guidelines for determining the referent of an IRI are provided in other
>>>    documents, like Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One [WEBARCH]
>>>    and Cool URIs for the Semantic Web [COOLURIS]. A very brief, informal and
>>>    partial account follows:
>>>
>>>     IRIs have global scope by design. Thus, two different appearances
>>>      of an IRI denote the same resource. Violations of this principle may
>>>      lead to interoperability problems or inconsistencies when, e.g.,
>>>      using data from multiple sources.
>>>
>>> Would that address your concerns?
>>
>> That comes *very* close to addressing my concerns.  A slight tweak to the bullet item would do it:
>>
>>     IRIs have global scope by design. Thus, two different appearances
>>      of an IRI are intended to denote the same resource. Violations
>>      of this principle may lead to interoperability problems or
>>      inconsistencies when, e.g., using data from multiple sources.
>
>>> IRIs have global scope by design. Thus, two different appearances
>>>      of an IRI should denote the same resource.  <etc.>
>
> Pat
>
> PS it even works if you put it in upper case.

Yes, I think that would be fine, either upper or lower case.  Probably 
lower case would be best though, to maintain the tone of an informal 
introduction.

David
Received on Sunday, 15 December 2013 03:00:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:44 UTC