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

I've been thinking further about this, and I have another more radical 
suggestion.

It seems to me that including even an informative definition of 
"generalized RDF" in the RDF spec substantially increases the risk that 
someone may mistakenly believe that "generalized RDF" is some form of 
standard RDF, when it is not. It is an extension of RDF that does not 
conform to the RDF standard. Hence it is all the more important to 
visibly warn readers about the use of generalized RDF.

Actually, the more I think about it the more I am convinced that the 
inclusion of the definition of "generalized RDF" in the RDF spec **at 
all** is a big mistake, because it substantially increases the risk that 
someone may mistakenly believe that "generalized RDF" is some form of 
standard RDF, when it is not.

Thus, my second suggestion is to entirely remove the definitions of 
generalized RDF triple, graph and dataset from the RDF Concepts document
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-generalized-rdf

If the RDF Semantics document needs to define the notion of generalized 
RDF to simplify the semantic rules, then I guess a definition could be 
included in that document, *with* a big fat warning saying that this 
definition is included only to simplify the specification of the formal 
semantics, and does not constitute a part of the RDF standard.

David


On 08/01/2013 11:20 AM, David Wood wrote:
> 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
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 20:18:02 UTC