- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:48:32 -0500
- To: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, 'Richard Cyganiak' <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
On 12/16/2013 02:18 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Markus, David, > > On 16 Dec 2013, at 16:56, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> > wrote: >> 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. > > One more attempt at a slight improvement: > > [[ IRIs have global scope. Thus, two different appearances of an IRI > denote the same resource. Violating this principle constitutes an IRI > collision [WEBARCH]. ]] > > Where “IRI collision” links to > http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision I think using the term "IRI collision" is a very good idea, though I think it is also good to explicitly mention inconsistencies or interoperability problems. But the phrasing above falls short because it lacks the word "should" or similar. As written it is like saying "I will *definitely* call you tomorrow. But if I don't . . . ." I would suggest combining your suggestion with some previously suggested verbiage: [[ By design, IRIs have global scope. Thus, two different appearances of an IRI should denote the same resource. Violating this principle constitutes an IRI collision [WEBARCH] that might lead to inconsistencies or interoperability problems. ]] David
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 19:49:00 UTC