- From: Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>
- Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:27:28 +0300
- To: Chockalingam <chockam@gmail.com>
- Cc: "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hm, maybe I should make a (boolean) option for my program, which of two strictness of validation to use? It seems unclear which of the variants is better. So user option may probably be a wise decision. Huh? 05.07.2014, 20:21, "Victor Porton" <porton@narod.ru>: > Any particular reason for this? > > There is a reason NOT to merge: It makes error discovery easier. > > But are there reasons to merge? > > 05.07.2014, 19:32, "Chockalingam" <chockam@gmail.com>: >> šDear Victor >> >> šAs per my understanding it should be merged and then only it will be complete. >> >> šRegards >> šChockalingam >> >> šSent from my iPhone >>> ššOn Jul 5, 2014, at 8:37 PM, Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> wrote: >>> >>> ššI work on this project: >>> ššhttp://freesoft.portonvictor.org/namespaces.xml >>> >>> ššIt involves downloading RDF files from the Web. >>> >>> ššWhen a "bundle" (for lack of a better word), that is a set of related RDF triples, is incomplete it should be ignored. >>> >>> ššMy question, if a bundle is split into several different RDF files, and each part of it is incomplete, should it nevertheless not be ignored if the union of all parts of the bundle is complete? >>> >>> ššA toy example (A, B1, B2, C be namespaces): >>> >>> ššIn one file: >>> >>> šš<A> <B1> <C> . >>> >>> ššIn an other file: >>> >>> šš<A> <B2> <C> . >>> >>> ššIf both B1 and B2 properties are required, should this information be ignored (as incomplete bundles)? or should the information from the two files be merged and thus considered complete? >>> >>> šš-- >>> ššVictor Porton - http://portonvictor.org > > -- > Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org -- Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org
Received on Saturday, 5 July 2014 17:28:02 UTC