- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:07:04 +0000
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 16 Dec 2013, at 19:47, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: >> 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, Good. > though I think it is also good to explicitly mention inconsistencies or interoperability problems. I disagree. The WEBARCH reference explains the interoperability problems. The fact that these interoperability problems may manifest themselves as inconsistencies is irrelevant here, and too much detail. > 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 . . . .” The bullet point is preceded by this sentence: [[ A very brief, informal and partial account follows: ]] That’s enough of a caveat. There’s also precedent form WEBARCH: [[ Since the scope of a URI is global, the resource identified by a URI does not depend on the context in which the URI appears. ]] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources And then a couple of paragraphs later it explains the consequence of violating the constraint just stated. Not a “should” in sight. If this kind of phrasing is good enough for normative text in Architecture of World Wide Web, then it’s surely good enough for a “very brief, informal and partial account” in the informative introduction to RDF Concepts. Richard
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 20:07:29 UTC