- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:55:03 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "public-rdf-text@w3.org" <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke > Sent: 22 May 2009 01:27 > To: Pat Hayes > Cc: Axel Polleres; public-rdf-text@w3.org > Subject: 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. This seems harsh. "Be liberal with what you accept." Andy > 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 09:56:56 UTC