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

On 12/18/2013 05:47 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> David,
>
> The RDF WG resolved today [1] ISSUE-148:
>
 > Resolve ISSUE-148 by changing the "IRIs have global scope"
 > bullet point in section 1.3 in Concepts to "By design,
 > IRIs have global scope. Thus, two different appearances
 > of an IRI denote the same resource. Violating
 > this principle constitutes an IRI collision
 > [WEBARCH]." http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision
 >
 > We very much hope you can live with this outcome. It might
 > not be exactly what you wanted, but I hope it is at least
 > very close to it.

Indeed, this is close, but it still does not address my concern,
because it still says "two different appearances of an IRI
denote the same resource" as though that is always true, in
spite of fact that the next sentence acknowledges that this
can be violated (though it gives no clue about how).

I gather that someone didn't like the word "should" or the
phrase "is intended to" that were proposed earlier.   As a
compromise, how about inserting "RDF assumes that":

   "By design, IRIs have global scope. Thus, RDF assumes
   that two different appearances of an IRI denote the same
   resource. Violating this principle constitutes an IRI
   collision [WEBARCH]."
   http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision

David