Re: enforcing the prohibition

Maybe I missed that in the thread, but as for defining D-entailment for 
SPARQL, we should be fine, because we can restrict BGP matching 
extension accordingly, right?  We can just say that graphs with explicit 
rdf:PlainLiteral typed literals aren't well-formed.

Axel

Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> 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
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 18:32:18 UTC