Re: enforcing the prohibition

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 09:55:03AM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----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."

i have a similar conclusion, but my arguments are:
  1 don't add a new graph validation layer, burden for implementors.

  2 someone may have clever ideas for it in the future.

> 	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
> 

-- 
-eric

office: +1.617.258.5741 32-G528, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
mobile: +1.617.599.3509

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.