W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: [RDF+OWL] conformance

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 09:00:12 +0100
Message-ID: <49FFF20C.3020705@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
CC: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> I drafted a conformance section:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Conformance_Clauses
> 
> This section contains clauses for both BLD and Core. Please have a look.

Looks good.

My main reservation is the restriction to not have rdf:first, rdf:rest, 
rdf:nil in the rule conclusions since that prevents conformant 
processors supporting construction of RDF lists, even though they can 
construct RIF lists. Can we say that this vocabulary is permissible in 
conclusions so long as the entailed RDF graph meets the restrictions on 
well-formedness of RDF lists?

Minor editorial comments:

o The term "RDF Name" used to describe object values isn't one I'm 
familiar with and isn't explicitly defined. Perhaps just say "IRI, RDF 
literal"?

o The &isin; doesn't display for me in Firefox (used in a couple places 
when describing the profile).

> I did not include strict conformance, because it did not make too much
> sense to me in combinations with RDF and OWL.

Agreed.

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 08:01:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:08 GMT