Re: review service description conformance

On Mar 8, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> ACTION-408
> """
> 3. The use in the returned RDF content of the vocabulary defined in this document MUST be used in accordance with the usage specified in section 3 Service Description Vocabulary.
> """
> I don't see what this is trying to say.
> 1/ A vocabulary do not "define" usage.  It defines the meaning of some classes and properties.

What about the documentation for that vocabulary defining usage? For example, the documentation in the referenced section indicates that when describing a named graph, the named graph resource must have a sd:name property. I suppose all of that sort of text could be moved to the conformance section, but it seems natural to me to indicate inline what parts of the vocabulary are expected to be used (versus parts that are optional).

> 2/ What if a processor only uses some of the vocabulary and ignores the rest?  It hasn't used the content in accordance with the usage.

I wouldn't agree with this. There's only a small amount of normative text in the vocabulary section. Only using some of the vocabulary would be fine, provided you're following the few places where normative text is used (e.g. the use of sd:namedGraph and sd:name).

>  What if it counts the triples?

I don't understand this.

>  Or checks the RDF is legal!

I thin this is already part of the conformance section in spirit, if not explicitly stated. The first conformance criteria begins "must return RDF content", suggesting to me that it must be legal RDF.


Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 16:24:16 UTC