Re: Blank Nodes Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

On 11/26/18 1:43 AM, David Booth wrote:
> On 11/25/18 12:32 PM, Jiří Procházka wrote:
>> having a vocabulary and semantics for
>> forwards compatible introduction of new semantic extensions 
>> could be
>> nice too (imagine in worst case of compatibility a tool alert "The
>> loaded document uses OWL-23-XYZ features which are not 
>> supported. Do you
>> still wish to proceed?").
> Yes, that is a gap currently in the RDF standards.  I remember 
> noting that gap several years ago:
>    "At present there is a minor gap in the RDF standards,
>    in that there is no standard way for an RDF processor to
>    recognize that a particular URI is intended to signal an
>    opaque semantic extension: the knowledge of which URIs
>    are intended to signal opaque semantic extensions must be
>    externally supplied to the RDF processor.  The RDF processor
>    must magically know about them in advance.  It cannot alert
>    the user to the need for a new opaque semantic extension
>    that was previously unknown.  This gap could be addressed
>    by defining a standard predicate, such as rdf2:requires,
>    to explicitly indicate when a particular semantic extension
>    is required."

It would also fall out naturally from the RDF-with-Contexts 
extension described in


> David Booth

call or text to 850 291 0667

Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 06:07:40 UTC