RE: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

Sorry for the late answer, I had some problem with an "intrusive" spam filter.

As for the validation issue: do you have some pointer about that ?

As for OWL vs RDF: ok, re-reading what I write actually sounds excessive.
What I meant is that there are conditions in which RDF  could be an "accepted" solution, but for some general confusion between the roles of RDF and OWL people run away from it.
This of course, is relative to a biased sampling of the world.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kendall Clark [] 
Sent: 15 January 2010 16:34
To: andrea splendiani (RRes-Roth)
Cc: Chris Welty;
Subject: Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Andrea Splendiani
<> 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.

Kendall Clark

Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 13:26:43 UTC