On 19/01/2011 3:55 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
The information on how to fully determine equivalence according to the URI spec is distributed across a wide and growing number of different specifications (because it is schema dependent) and could, in principle, change over time. Because of the distributed nature of the information it is not feasible to fully implement these rules. Optionally implementing these rules (each implementor choosing where on the ladder they want to be) would mean that documents written in RDF (and derivative languages) would be interpreted differently by different implementations, which is an unacceptable feature of languages designed for unambiguous communication. The fact that the set of rules is growing and possibly changing would lead to a similar situation - documents that meant one thing at one time could mean different things later, which is also unacceptable, for the same reason.
Well put, I meant to point out the implications of scheme-dependence and you've covered it very clearly.
David (Wood) clarifies (surprisingly to me as well) that the issue of normalization could be addressed by the working group. I expect, however, that any proposed change would quickly be determined to be counter to the instructions given in the charter on Compatibility and Deployment Expectation, and if not, would be rejected after justified objections on this basis from reviewers outside the working group.
+1 Dave
