- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:07:14 -0600
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
- Cc: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
On 11/26/18 1:43 AM, David Booth wrote: > On 11/25/18 12:32 PM, Jiří Procházka wrote: >> having a vocabulary and semantics for >> forwards compatible introduction of new semantic extensions >> could be >> nice too (imagine in worst case of compatibility a tool alert "The >> loaded document uses OWL-23-XYZ features which are not >> supported. Do you >> still wish to proceed?"). > > Yes, that is a gap currently in the RDF standards. I remember > noting that gap several years ago: > http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html#part3_2 > > "At present there is a minor gap in the RDF standards, > in that there is no standard way for an RDF processor to > recognize that a particular URI is intended to signal an > opaque semantic extension: the knowledge of which URIs > are intended to signal opaque semantic extensions must be > externally supplied to the RDF processor. The RDF processor > must magically know about them in advance. It cannot alert > the user to the need for a new opaque semantic extension > that was previously unknown. This gap could be addressed > by defining a standard predicate, such as rdf2:requires, > to explicitly indicate when a particular semantic extension > is required." It would also fall out naturally from the RDF-with-Contexts extension described in https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDFwithContexts. Pat > > David Booth > > > > > -- ----------------------------------- call or text to 850 291 0667 www.ihmc.us/groups/phayes/ www.facebook.com/the.pat.hayes
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 06:07:40 UTC