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

On 12/19/13 4:33 PM, 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 

Guus,

I am getting somewhat confused about protraction here.


On 12/18/13 9:33 PM, David Booth wrote, in response to Guus:
>
> 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 
I don't see any problem with David's suggestion. It's accurate and 
defensible.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen