W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2001

RE: RDFCore Update

From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:18:13 +0300
Message-ID: <A35E2040C17F0C48B941B8F4D0DF122908E37B@ermhs.Athens.BrokerSystems.gr>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <tpassin@home.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] 

> From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> Subject: RE: RDFCore Update
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:35:23 +0300
> 
> > 
> > It is also important to note that, unless RDF itself defines
> > a single, standard mechanism for data type validation, it can
> > do nothing more than ensure that statements about data types
> > do not conflict.

Furthermore, same properties may use different datatypes over different
but collaborative environments. So, I guess the best practice is to
build and use a subclass of that property and then define it's datatype?

From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>
Subject: Re: RDFCore Update
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:52:44 -0400

> [Peter F. Patel-Schneider]
> 
> >
> > I don't know how you could handle a prescriptive meaning for
rdfs:range in
> > an open environment.  You certainly can't say that the target object
has
> to
> > belong to the range when the triple is read because there is no
notion of
> > order in RDF.
> 
> But that only means that you cannot validate the graph until the whole
thing
> is constructed.  That's no different that for XML Schema itself.  Why
do you
> think that would be unworkable?  It would let you separate graph
> construction and validation into separate processing layers, which
should be
> good not bad.

My problem in making a solid RDF app comes exactly from this issue. I
would love a platform that would dynamically build a subgraph G' from
graph G, according to current app needs.
In general, I think this "dynamic context" thingy is what is missing
from RDF, to allow further adoption and development (I guess that's why
we still don't have a usable RDFPath language).

Just passing by,

Manos
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 08:16:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT