- From: Ivan Mikhailov <imikhailov@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:05:40 +0600
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: Semantic web list <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hello Karl, I'd like to have a smart "closed world" validator, too. With SPARQL things become even more funny: we should try to validate names in queries as well as names in data. I don't know how to minimize the amount of false positives / false negatives of the test on real "open world" data. Maybe the validator should guess that the difference in single character is probably a typo whereas major difference with any known name may mean unknown vocabulary? Best Regards, Ivan Mikhailov OpenLink Software. On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 12:06 +0900, Karl Dubost wrote: > Hi, > > I was trying to validate an RDF document and I just realized that the > RDF validator, was just checking > the document is well-formed and that is a graph, but not that the > vocabulary is used appropriately. > > <?xml version="1.0"?> > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" > xmlns:myvocab="http:example.org/"> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/"> > <dc:title>World Wide Web Consortium</dc:title> > <dc:foobar>a foreign element to Dublin Core Vocabulary</dc:foobar> > <myvocab:foo>an unknown vocab</myvocab:foo> > </rdf:Description> > </rdf:RDF> > > > The vocabulary which is not part of Dublin Core for example will not > be detected. > <dc:foobar>a foreign element to Dublin Core Vocabulary</dc:foobar> > > Is there a way to check that your vocabulary is consistent. The > answer could be: > > Your document is RDF valid but contains > > * an unknown vocabulary: vocab, > * an element which is not part of dc vocabulary: foobar > > > > -- > Karl Dubost - W3C > http://www.w3.org/QA/ > Be Strict To Be Cool > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 04:07:03 UTC