- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:33:40 -0500
- To: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@bbsrc.ac.uk>
- Cc: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@bbsrc.ac.uk> wrote: > One thing is validation. > > While this is not in the RDF "mindset", people that exchange data in RDF want to be able to say when a "file" is complete or correct. They sometimes wrongly refer to OWL restrictions, sometimes to custom code. > Perhaps a standard additional vocabulary for rdf validation would help. Generating validation constraints from OWL to SPARQL queries is a nice approach that requires no spec changes. We're doing that presently and it works a treat. > Relations with OWL. > Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for ontologies and the like but, at this stage, RDF and related technologies can be proposed in "semi" production environments. The same doesn't go for OWL yet. The world is more complex than you might think since there are many places where OWL is in production environments. We shouldn't generate too hastily from limited data. Cheers, Kendall Clark
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 16:34:33 UTC