- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:33:55 +0000
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 10/03/11 16:23, Gregory Williams wrote: > On Mar 8, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >> ACTION-408 DONE >> >> """ 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). I guess "usage" has two meanings: "usage" as described by the vocabulary document and usage as the application makes use of it. "The use .. returned RDF content ... MUST be used" is talking about the application as I read it. > >> 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). (3) says "MUST be used" - does that override any MAY earlier on? >> What if it counts the triples? > > I don't understand this. A example of doing something with the returned RDF content which is not described in section 3. This is "application usage". I don't care if no changes are made - I just don't understand it - see above about "use" Andy > >> 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. > > .greg > >
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 17:34:33 UTC