- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:53:55 +0100
- 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