- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:41:17 -0500
- To: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On May 16, 2013, at 8:15 AM, James Leigh wrote: > On Thu, 2013-05-16 at 10:10 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> James, >> >> ... >>> In section 5.5 The Value Corresponding to a Literal, It says they "MUST >>> accept ill-typed literals". I believe that should be changes to "SHOULD >>> accept ill-typed literals", since earlier it says they SHOULD NOT reject >>> them. >> >> Sorry, where does it say that they SHOULD NOT reject them? >> > > In section 5.4 Datatype IRIs, "Applications may give a warning message > if they are unable to determine the referent of an IRI used in a typed > literal, but they should not reject such RDF as either a syntactic or > semantic error." > > I believe MUST is too strong either way, as many RDBMS database have a > limited set of data types, but one should still be able to use a > domain-specific RDBMS schema to store RDF data. > I believe MUST is appropriate, but I don't understand why you feel that this would be a problem for RDBMS databases. Yes, one should be able to use a domain-specific schema to store RDF data. That is why other RDF engines MUST not reject data typed with that schema even when they don't know what schema it was. Note, this MUST only says that it should not be rejected as bad RDF. It might be rejected on other grounds, and RDF engines can issue a warning or flag it. What they are not allowed to do is report it back as badly formed RDF which does not conform to the RDF spec.. Pat > Regards, > James > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 16:41:48 UTC