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

Hi David,

Please see the minutes of the WG discussion here:
  https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-12-18#Concepts___26___20_Semantics

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On Dec 22, 2013, at 22:00, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> David
> 
> 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]." 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
>>>> 
>>>> P.S. According to the meeting minutes,
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/12/18-rdf-wg-minutes.html#item05
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>