- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:47:20 +0200
- To: "Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB)" <Matthew.C.Johnson@lexisnexis.com>
- Cc: "Richard Newman" <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>, semantic-web@w3.org
On 4/21/06, Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB) <Matthew.C.Johnson@lexisnexis.com> wrote: > Does this mentality really mean that validation, in the sense of "a > person MUST have a name", is too restrictive and that, if necessary, it > should be done within the application? For RDF/RDFS/OWL, yes, but a rules system may cover this kind of situation. This does seem to be a recurring issue (it's on one of my plates right now), fortunately it's already had some attention - Eyeball can check RDF models for "common problems" (I think "MUST have a name" could be done if there was owl:cardinality 1 on name) : http://jena.sourceforge.net/Eyeball/full.html Schemarama2, rules based system: http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/schemarama/how.html Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Friday, 21 April 2006 18:47:30 UTC