New issue/comment/whatever...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> Sent: 30 April, 2003 05:16
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: GK@ninebynine.org; uri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Resources and URIs
> 
> 
> ... If you have some information 
> expressed using URIs to denote things, and I have some similar 
> information, and we use the same URIs, then indeed we have agreed (or 
> assumed) that we are using the URIs in the same way. Everyone should 
> feel entitled to assume that our uses of a given URI correspond, so 
> that whatever it refers to when you use it, is whatever it refers to 
> when I use it.  RDF and the SW generally is predicated on this, as 
> you point out.  OK, agreed.  With this much, I agree with everything 
> you say in all your messages.

Great. And I would like this expressed in some clear, normative
manner in the RDF specs. I appreciate that the MT must allow for
multiple interpretations, but we should be clear that the global
interchange of RDF expressed knowledge between arbitrary systems
presumes a single shared interpretation for all URIs.

The present RDF specs do not say this clearly and explicitly, even
if it is implicitly reflected in the graph merge operation.

Having it expressed in no uncertain terms will surely benefit the
RDF and SW communties since already now there appear to be folks 
who seem to think that different SW agents can maintain different
interpretations of the same URI and that that is *OK* (not simply
possible).

Perhaps the place for this to be stated is in Concepts.

Do I need to raise this issue as a comment? Or can this be addressed
solely within the WG (i.e. regarding the process, do WG members need 
to propose changes as comments the same as non-WG individuals?)

Patrick


--
Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Friday, 2 May 2003 04:09:41 UTC