W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: review service description conformance

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:33:55 +0000
Message-ID: <4D790B83.3070209@epimorphics.com>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 10/03/11 16:23, Gregory Williams wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> ACTION-408 DONE
>>
>> """ 3. The use in the returned RDF content of the vocabulary
>> defined in this document MUST be used in accordance with the usage
>> specified in section 3 Service Description Vocabulary. """
>>
>> I don't see what this is trying to say.
>>
>> 1/ A vocabulary do not "define" usage.  It defines the meaning of
>> some classes and properties.
>
> What about the documentation for that vocabulary defining usage? For
> example, the documentation in the referenced section indicates that
> when describing a named graph, the named graph resource must have a
> sd:name property. I suppose all of that sort of text could be moved
> to the conformance section, but it seems natural to me to indicate
> inline what parts of the vocabulary are expected to be used (versus
> parts that are optional).

I guess "usage" has two meanings: "usage" as described by the vocabulary 
document and usage as the application makes use of it.

"The use .. returned RDF content ... MUST be used" is talking about the 
application as I read it.

>
>> 2/ What if a processor only uses some of the vocabulary and ignores
>> the rest?  It hasn't used the content in accordance with the
>> usage.
>
> I wouldn't agree with this. There's only a small amount of normative
> text in the vocabulary section. Only using some of the vocabulary
> would be fine, provided you're following the few places where
> normative text is used (e.g. the use of sd:namedGraph and sd:name).

(3) says "MUST be used" - does that override any MAY earlier on?

>> What if it counts the triples?
>
> I don't understand this.

A example of doing something with the returned RDF content which is not 
described in section 3.  This is "application usage".

I don't care if no changes are made - I just don't understand it - see 
above about "use"

	Andy

>
>> Or checks the RDF is legal!
>
>
> I thin this is already part of the conformance section in spirit, if
> not explicitly stated. The first conformance criteria begins "must
> return RDF content", suggesting to me that it must be legal RDF.
>
> .greg
>
>
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 17:34:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT