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

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

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:54:47 +0100
Message-ID: <52B73577.9000701@vu.nl>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
All,

I've closed the poll. The chairs see insufficient reason to reopen the 
issue (see response on comments list), and we consider this the end of 
this debate.

Guus


On 19-12-13 23:17, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> All,
>
> You probably saw the message from David Booth about ISSUE-148 on the
> comments list.  In the W3C spirit of doing the ultimate for consensus I
> created a straw poll to get  your opinions on the amendment he proposes.
> Based on the outcome the chairs will make a suggestion  whether or not
> further action is called for.
>
> The straw poll is here (and open until the end of the year):
>
>      https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/issue-148/
>
> Enjoy your Xmas break.
> Guus
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-148: IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource
> Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:26:55 +0000
> Resent-From: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:26:22 -0500
> From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber.guus@gmail.com>
> CC: Public RDF comments list <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 22 December 2013 18:55:14 UTC

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