Re: What does it mean to “implement RDF” or “conform to RDF”?

Hi Sandro,

On 12 May 2012, at 12:19, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> I notice some language like:
> 
>        Interoperability problems can be avoided by minting only IRIs
>        that are normalized according to Section 5 of [IRI].
>        Non-normalized forms that should be avoided include:
> 
>              * Uppercase characters in scheme names and domain names
>        ...
> 
> That suggests there might be a class of things which mint IRIs for use
> in RDF, and to conform to rdf-concepts, those "IRI-minters" SHOULD only
> mint normalized IRIs.
> 
> There are other such normative (deontic) statements throughout the
> document.  It might be worth thinking about each one a bit to see if it
> involves a class of things which we think should/must be some way or
> behave in some way.

That's a good idea, thanks. I'll give this a try, and concrete suggestions are welcome at any time.

Best,
Richard



>     (I'm happy to help with that, but don't have
> time right now, and thought I should share this idea rather than waiting
> until I'd done that.)
> 
>    -- Sandro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 12 May 2012 16:35:48 UTC