W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

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

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:53:55 +0100
Message-ID: <52B05773.8000708@vu.nl>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 17-12-13 14:18, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:01 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 12/17/13 7:06 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>> I don't care much whether we use denote or identify. According to Pat,
>>> "identify" is technically more correct whereas Richard points out that
>>> "denote" is more consistent with the rest of the section. I personally
>>> prefer "identify" in this case because I believe that it is the term
> that's
>>> best aligned with RFC3986/RC3987 and WEBARCH.
>>
>> Are you sure that Pat preferred "identify" over "denote" as you've
>> presented above?
>
> That's at least how I understood [1]:
>
> [[[
> Part of the problem is the use of the technical word "denote" here. Why not
> use  the mealy-mouth word "meaning": two different appearances of an IRI
> have identical meanings. That is technically correct, even if it is a bit
> blurrier, because a 'meaning' can indeed be a way of referring ambiguously.
> Actually I like this now I have thought of it. (Another option, closer to
> this present wording, is to use "identify" rather than "denote".)
> ]]]
>
> ... but I'm sure Pat won't hesitate to tell us if he's misquoted :-)

Once I hear from Pat on this I will send this proposed resolution also 
to the commenter.
Guus

>
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Dec/0091.html
>
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 13:54:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC