W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: RDF Recommendation Set comments (re agenda for 6th April)

From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 20:25:43 +0200
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110407182543.GQ21404@styx.org>
* [2011-04-07 11:40:49 -0500] Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> écrit:

] While nonsensical, I doubt it that is a logical contradiction to
] anything. Most errors are not logically inconsistent. I think that
] relying on consistency checking to find errors is simply a mistake/poor
] design. 

Quite possibly. Relying on a compiler to find bugs in your software is
a bad idea in general but does give you a minimum baseline - does the
program compile with some set of error checks, maybe -Wall -Werror
with gcc? Right now we are at the level of just checking basic
well-formedness.

To take x disjointFrom x, this is not a logical contradiction
according to RDF(S), but is an easy pattern to spot and if you descend
the proof chain you can hopefully find the source of the problem
easily enough.

I also wouldn't advocate trying to do this on a wide scale, more as a
tool for data publishers to check their data before publishing it,
much as a developer would try to compile their program (hopefully)
before releasing it.

Not catch all errors, but catch a good portion of some of the obvious
ones. Type (XSD) reasoning is another good one that might catch many
errors but I am not aware of an existing reasoner that does this...

Cheers,
-w
-- 
William Waites                <mailto:ww@styx.org>
http://river.styx.org/ww/        <sip:ww@styx.org>
F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB  3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 18:26:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT