W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2010

Re: data quality

From: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:26:42 +0100
Message-ID: <l2me8aa138c1004191526q440e1fe9t37c073100658f8e0@mail.gmail.com>
To: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com
Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, semantic-web@w3.org, "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@deri.org>
I can't see the relevance of this. Validators evolve for different reasons
and in different ways depending on what is being validated.
But we aren't interested in whether the RDF is valid, we assume it is, that
is tools to create and tools to validate are in step. We should assume the
same of any OWL too.
What we are interested in is data validity, which when it comes to triples,
whether the referenced datum is either or both as described by what
references it or describing what is referenced.
But within the confines of RDF, or OWL, it is possible to create correct
nonsense. It is quite possible to create a pizza with additional toppings of
pizza dough, or, say, water.
Pizza Maker may want to pass off a tomato topping called 'made from newly
grown from Garfagnana valley', when it is really from a mixed source can of
unknown vintage.
So far the concern has been mainly for the correctness of the metadata, some
misclassification or interim change in what is referenced.
But all of that can be in place correctly and results still be either false
or falsified.

Adam


On 19 April 2010 19:43, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>> May I ask what you mean by "valid RDF" here?
>>
>
> any RDF which does not validate
>
>>
>> You refer to "many validators"? Which? There are, indeed, many, for
>> different languages. Do you only mean the RDF validators?
>>
>
>
> sorry, maybe that was incorrect,  I took the word validators from third tab
> on this
> page
>
>  http://pedantic-web.org/
>
>>
>> Maybe you can provide a serious example for what you mean by /invalid/
>> RDF?
>> By "serious" I mean something that could really be found in some document
>> on
>> the web, where people believed that it would be valid, but it isn't (no
>> typos).
>>
>
>
> I personally have limited experience with RDF
> but  I remember once one of the RDF elements (fields? properties?) was
> supposed to be a URI
> but the RDF generator we used did not specify it had to be uri, so we
> entered a word (literal?)
> and validation failed, when a valide URI was entered, the RDF validated
> I am sure the pedantic people will have compiled a catalogue of reasons why
> validation fails?
>
>
> hope I address your questions
>
> P
>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>
Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 22:27:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:21 UTC