Re: [RDF+OWL] conformance

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>> I drafted a conformance section:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Conformance_Clauses
>>
>> This section contains clauses for both BLD and Core. Please have a look.
> 
> Looks good.
> 
> My main reservation is the restriction to not have rdf:first, rdf:rest,
> rdf:nil in the rule conclusions since that prevents conformant
> processors supporting construction of RDF lists, even though they can
> construct RIF lists.

Well, the statement says that conformant consumers are not required to
be able to process such combinations.  However, it does not prevent
conformant consumers from accepting combinations that do have these
statements in rule conclusions.  Observe also that there are no
restrictions on the use of these names in the definition of conformant
producers.

> Can we say that this vocabulary is permissible in
> conclusions so long as the entailed RDF graph meets the restrictions on
> well-formedness of RDF lists?

Well, this would be a condition that is rather hard to check.  In fact,
I believe it is not decidable.  I would rather not have such a statement
in a conformance clause.

> 
> Minor editorial comments:
> 
> o The term "RDF Name" used to describe object values isn't one I'm
> familiar with and isn't explicitly defined. Perhaps just say "IRI, RDF
> literal"?

Yes.

> 
> o The ∈ doesn't display for me in Firefox (used in a couple places
> when describing the profile).

This is odd. We use the symbol in a number of places throughout our
documents and it is a standard HTML entity. I also have no problems
seeing them with my Firefox.

If there is one near the start of the 5th paragraph. Does your browser
not render it?

> 
>> I did not include strict conformance, because it did not make too much
>> sense to me in combinations with RDF and OWL.
> 
> Agreed.

Great!


Best, Jos

> 
> Dave

-- 
+43 1 58801 18470        debruijn@inf.unibz.it

Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
Many would be cowards if they had courage
enough.
  - Thomas Fuller