Re: More clearly warn that "generalized RDF" is non-standard

Hi David,

I acknowledge your comment and your concern.  I *personally* agree with you that we need to carefully word this section of RDF Concepts.

The next RDF WG meeting that I will be able to attend is 21 August, so I will put this on the agenda for that meeting.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On Aug 1, 2013, at 10:28, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> Section 7 defines the notion of "generalized RDF", triples and datasets, but does not adequately warn that "generalized RDF" is non-standard. Case in point: this has already led to some discussion in the JSON-LD group about whether "generalized RDF" is a form of standard RDF.
> 
> I suggest rewording section 7 to the following, using a "NOTE" call-out:
> [[
>    <p>It is sometimes convenient to loosen the requirements
>    on <a>RDF triple</a>s.  For example, the completeness
>    of the RDFS entailment rules is easier to show with a
>    generalization of RDF triples.   </p>
> 
>    <p>A <dfn>generalized RDF triple</dfn> is an RDF triple
>    generalized so that subjects, predicates, and objects
>    are all allowed to be IRIs, blank nodes, or literals.
>    A <dfn>generalized RDF graph</dfn> is an RDF graph of
>    generalized RDF triples, i.e., a set of generalized RDF
>    triples.  A <dfn>generalized RDF dataset</dfn> is an RDF
>    dataset of generalized RDF graphs where graph labels can
>    be IRIs, blank nodes, or literals.</p>
> 
>    <p class="note" id="note-generalized-rdf"> Any users of
>    generalized RDF triples, graphs or datasets need to be
>    aware that these notions are non-standard extensions of
>    RDF and their use may cause interoperability problems.
>    There is no requirement on the part of any RDF tool to
>    accept, process, or produce anything beyond standard RDF
>    triples, graphs, and datasets. </p>
> ]]
> 
> Thanks,
> David
>