- From: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@univ-rennes1.fr>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:20:18 +0200
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>, SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
>> RDF just isn't well suited for describing structures that MUST >> include a particular field. (You *can* do this, but then you're >> ignoring RDF's semantics, and just treating it as a weird database). > > Additional assumptions are not quite the same as ignoring the semantics :-) > > In engineering terms there is often a point where you have to say > "whilst the world is open this is all the data I'm actually going to > get and I have to check if this data is complete enough to meet the > assumptions of my next processing step". That doesn't stop you > benefiting from the flexibility of the open world assumption right up > to the point where you have perform a closed-world model check in order > to proceed (e.g. actually send a message to that address). Yes and... is there a way to formalize these extra contraints ? If I want to provide a documentation about them, to define an exchange message ? Or a post-pre-requisite valid "content" ? ciao, Andrea
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:49:44 UTC