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

Hi Guus,

What is the nature of the pushback?  It is nearly impossible to craft 
verbiage that is acceptable to all if I don't know what are the concerns.


On 12/22/2013 01:45 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> David,
> I did a quick straw poll in the WG. Two people are in favor of the
> change you propose, but there is also considerable push back.  The
> chairs see insufficient reason to reopen this editorial issue, taking
> into account the extensive discussion that already took place.
> I'm still willing to see whether a statement in the spirit of your
> comment can be added to the Primer, but that is all I can offer.
> Please let me know whether you can live with this response. If so,
> please answer with [RESOLVED] in the subject line.
> Best,
> Guus
> On 19-12-13 22:33, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> I'm sorry it has gone this way. I don't like the fact that non-members
>> cannot subscribe to a group's mailing list either (in earlier groups I
>> chaired we had that mechanism, which was a big plus).  But as a group we
>> have no control over that.
>> The fact that the issue was not discussed at some length during the last
>> telecon is my doing as chair. Basically, we had an overfull agenda and
>> for this issue there were already 60+ messages recorded. I felt we had
>> reached the point were further discussion was not of much use.
>> W.r.t. your petition: I will suggest to the WG to do a straw poll on
>> this.
>> Thanks for the time you invested in this.
>> Best,
>> Guus
>> On 19-12-13 21:26, David Booth wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2013 09:33 PM, David Booth wrote:
>>>> 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]."
>>>>  >
>>>>  > 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]."
>>>> David
>>> P.S. According to the meeting minutes,
>>> the WG **did not even consider** any wordings that would have fully
>>> addressed the concern that caused me to raise this issue.  The only two
>>> options that were considered were *identical* in still having the
>>> problem described above.
>>> I know it isn't easy to craft verbiage that is acceptable to many
>>> different parties with different perspectives, and I have offered to
>>> help do that.  But the way the working group has handled this --
>>> simultaneously prohibiting discussion on the public-rdf-comments list
>>> while also prohibiting non-member subscription to the working group
>>> discussion list -- has left me only an extremely blunt instrument for
>>> communicating with the working group.  In essence, all I can do is raise
>>> a formal objection.  And friends, that's rather broken.  It sure ain't
>>> very efficient.
>>> This is the time to get this fixed.  We should not go another 5 years
>>> with wrong/misleading statements about the uniqueness of IRI reference,
>>> leading new RDF users down a garden path only to be surprised and
>>> disappointed later when merged graphs don't work as expected.  One might
>>> assume that, because this text is a non-normative introduction, it isn't
>>> very important.  But it *is* important because it affects how the reader
>>> thinks about the whole specification.  Readers need to know that URI
>>> collisions can happen **even with RDF that is 100% compliant with the
>>> RDF specification**.
>>> The currently adopted verbiage *almost* addresses my concern, because it
>>> acknowledges that the principle of unique URI reference *can* be
>>> violated.  But alas, as currently phrased, readers are likely to assume
>>> that such violations are violations of the RDF specifications, rather
>>> than violations of a higher level architectural objective.  Readers need
>>> to know that RDF makes the *assumption* of unique URI reference, and
>>> hence if this assumption is violated, there may be problems due to URI
>>> collision.
>>> I have spent a *lot* of time over the past several years -- probably
>>> *thousands* of hours cumulatively -- trying to get to the bottom of the
>>> resource identity issue.  In fact, I may have spent more time on this
>>> issue than all other members of the RDF working group *combined*,
>>> excluding Pat Hayes!  But that is mere idle speculation.  The point is
>>> that although this may seem like a trivial issue to some, it is
>>> important to me, as to my mind it ultimately underlies nearly
>>> *everything* we do in the Semantic Web that we're trying to build.
>>> I have done my best to work as efficiently as possible with the RDF
>>> working group -- moving lengthy discussions to other lists, trying hard
>>> to reach common understanding with other individuals before proposing
>>> fixes that might reach consensus, and offering to help craft acceptable
>>> wording -- but as explained above, the constraints imposed by the
>>> working group have made the process frustratingly difficult and awkward.
>>> So, I guess I will rephrase my suggestion above.  Would anyone strongly
>>> *object* to inserting "RDF assumes that" in the currently adopted bullet
>>> phrasing, as described above?  If so, why?
>>> Thanks,
>>> David

Received on Monday, 23 December 2013 03:01:16 UTC