Re: possible stances with respect to multiple reification

On 22.04.2024 17:22, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> I am against stating that well-formedness is something that might be 
> used to limit what an RDF implementation accepts.  In my view that will 
> either split the RDF space or (worse) choke off non-wellformed RDF graphs.

In practice this IMO already happened. Stardog by default enables 
"strict parsing", which rejects datatypes that are incorrect [1]. I 
guess other stores do the same, at least optionally.

Rdflib will throw an exception if a datatype does not adhere to the 
standard. Furthermore, as we've discussed multiple times, lists are not 
well supported in various stores partly because they are prone to failure.

I completely understand the utility of being able to load any dataset 
regardless of its content's coherence. However, as I mentioned two weeks 
ago, this approach becomes problematic when developing applications on 
top of this data. In such scenarios, users expect a more closed-world 
handling of data where everything should be 'proper'; otherwise, it 
becomes significantly more challenging to develop frontend applications.
And I say that as someone who earns his living building applications 
based on RDF data.

With literals, the solution is relatively straightforward: we can simply 
validate the datatypes. Implementing a similar standard of 
well-formedness for RDF-Star (and hopefully for lists in the future) is 
essential for these applications.

The problem is that right now I don't have a way to say "I need this set 
of restrictions" for my use-case, it's very vendor/implementation 
specific. I think I would need something similar to OWL-profiles, where 
I know what to expect.




Adrian Gschwend
CEO Zazuko GmbH, Biel, Switzerland

Phone +41 32 510 60 31

Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2024 11:19:37 UTC