ISSUE-29 (Well-formedness): Criteria for well-formedness [Data Cube Vocabulary]

ISSUE-29 (Well-formedness): Criteria for well-formedness [Data Cube Vocabulary]

Raised by: Dave Reynolds
On product: Data Cube Vocabulary

The formal RDF Data Cube vocabulary expresses few formal semantic constraints. Furthermore, in RDF then omission of otherwise-expected properties on resources does not lead to any formal inconsistencies.

However, to build reliable software to process Data Cubes then data consumers need to know what assumptions they can make about a dataset purporting to be a Data Cube. 

What *well-formedness* criteria should Data Cube publishers conform to?

Specific areas which may need explicit clarification in the well-formedness criteria include (but may not be limited to):

   * use of abbreviated data layout based on attachment levels
   * use of qb:Slice when (completeness, requirements for an explicit qb:SliceKey?)
   * avoiding mixing two approaches to handling multiple-measures
   * optional triples (e.g. type triples)

Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 15:37:15 UTC