- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:45:42 -0500
- To: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
> From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> > > OK, moving this discussion to public-rdf-wg but CCing David > Both for convenience. > > I've updated Concepts to say > > IRIs have global scope by design. 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. That does NOT address my concern, for two reasons: (a) it is missing the word "should" or similar; and (b) the word "identify" is specifically defined in the RDF Semantics to be a different notion from "denote", but the definition is so vague the term is essentially meaningless: "IRI meanings may also be determined by other constraints external to the RDF semantics; when we wish to refer to such an externally defined naming relationship, we will use the word *identify* and its cognates." https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#notation-and-terminology David
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 19:46:15 UTC