enforcing the prohibition

> > One thing I am not sure still: It was pointed out that we cannot  
> > prevent people from writing graphs using rdf:text as a datatype  
> > explicitly.
> > Is that a problem?
> 
> Well, I think we can very actively discourage them from doing so, and  
> warning them to expect trouble, and exactly what to expect, if they  
> do. In fact, nothing will actually break if they do, unless they  
> expect these things to mean the same as plain literals without using  
> datatype entailment. Its more likely that they, the publishers. won't  
> have any problems, but some poor schmuk the other side of the world  
> won't get their queries answered properly. But if the spec has plainly  
> said this using rdf:text (or whatever) as a dataype will cause these  
> problems, and it does, then its going to be easy for people to find  
> the culprit, which I think is all that we really need to do. Social  
> pressure will do the rest: blogs will immediately point out that XXX's  
> RDF is corrupted with the forbidden datatype, etc..

I'm neutral on this option, but one more stick we *could* use is to
require RIF systems to reject RDF graphs that use rdf:text as a
datatype.  RIF already does this with the rif:iri, to try to make sure
it doesn't leak out.

     ...documents importing RDF graphs containing typed literals of the
     form "http://iri"^^rif:iri must be rejected.

            -- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC

We haven't yet added any ImportsRejectionTests to check on this, but we
plan to.  I don't think OWL 2 such a notion, and I wouldn't want to add
it just for this.

      -- Sandro

Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 00:27:13 UTC