RDF-ISSUE-139 (david-booth-generalized-rdf-warning): More clearly warn that "generalized RDF" is non-standard (David Booth) [RDF Concepts]

RDF-ISSUE-139 (david-booth-generalized-rdf-warning): More clearly warn that "generalized RDF" is non-standard (David Booth) [RDF Concepts]

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/139

Raised by: Markus Lanthaler
On product: RDF Concepts

Section 7 defines the notion of "generalized RDF", triples and datasets, 
but does not adequately warn that "generalized RDF" is non-standard. 
Case in point: this has already led to some discussion in the JSON-LD 
group about whether "generalized RDF" is a form of standard RDF.

I suggest rewording section 7 to the following, using a "NOTE" call-out:
[[
     <p>It is sometimes convenient to loosen the requirements
     on <a>RDF triple</a>s.  For example, the completeness
     of the RDFS entailment rules is easier to show with a
     generalization of RDF triples.   </p>

     <p>A <dfn>generalized RDF triple</dfn> is an RDF triple
     generalized so that subjects, predicates, and objects
     are all allowed to be IRIs, blank nodes, or literals.
     A <dfn>generalized RDF graph</dfn> is an RDF graph of
     generalized RDF triples, i.e., a set of generalized RDF
     triples.  A <dfn>generalized RDF dataset</dfn> is an RDF
     dataset of generalized RDF graphs where graph labels can
     be IRIs, blank nodes, or literals.</p>

     <p class="note" id="note-generalized-rdf"> Any users of
     generalized RDF triples, graphs or datasets need to be
     aware that these notions are non-standard extensions of
     RDF and their use may cause interoperability problems.
     There is no requirement on the part of any RDF tool to
     accept, process, or produce anything beyond standard RDF
     triples, graphs, and datasets. </p>
]]

Thanks,
David

[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Aug/0000.html]

Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:30:25 UTC