Re: my action on conformance

Steven Pemberton wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:13:38 +0200, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> 
>> My worry was that parser libraries that generate random "dirty triples"
>> would still be compliant and potentially create a problem for people who
>> use them.
>>
>> Apparently, I'm the only person worried about this (blame it on my
>> security paranoia), so I'll happily withdraw my objection here and say
>> that I'm happy with the current SPARQL-based test cases and the
>> corresponding "presence of triples" compliance approach.
> 
> No, you are not alone, I agree. I worry about us not spotting dirty 
> triples too.

RDF's semantics guarantee non-interference of triples; the graph is a 
set of "blah and blah and blah" statements, with no capacity for 
negation. While the use of OWL means that additional statements could 
contract others, I think this probably unlikely. The RDF idea is that 
any extra stuff should be a "bonus", and that basic clients can safely 
ignore things they don't understand. This more or less works, even.

That said, I'd like for purposes of testing conformance for it to be 
clear for any given bit of software, when it is going beyond what the 
core RDFa specs license it to do. For example it might integrate 
hardcoded knowledge of particular markups or microformats, or perhaps be 
GRDDL-aware.

>> Note that this does *not* mean that RDFa will generate triples for the
>> old Dublin Core notation, just that if a tool like Mark's Sidewinder
>> chooses to generate triples for the legacy Dublin Core approach, we
>> won't say that it no longer complies with RDFa.
> 
> Still, I don't think RDFa should necessarily be the sole source of 
> triples for a document. Think microformats and RDFa in the same document.
> 
> But I think our test set should attempt to spot dirty triples.

can we call them "bonus" triples? ;)

Dan

> Steven
>

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 15:05:57 UTC