Re: Request for feedback about RDF-star

torsdag 25. mars 2021 14.46.31 CET skrev Ted Thibodeau Jr:

> > "Any other names are not defined and SHOULD generate a warning when
> > encountered, but should otherwise behave normally.", which seems to
> > indicate that the expectation is that the names is a fixed set.
> This seems to me to be a misinterpretation of the quoted text.
> "Generating a warning" is a significant hand wave, as this might
> be invisible to the user for various reasons (and that invisibility
> might be OK, again for various reasons).
> To my eyes, "should otherwise behave normally" is license to add.

To me, it is merely to say that systems should not break on unexpected 
vocabularies. When a system is designed to emit a warning under such 
conditions, it is a pretty strong statement to me (I tend to have "no 
warnings" as a test case in my test suite :-) ). 

I would certainly have appreciated it if the WG had foreseen the situation 
that people might add terms to the vocab, but I don't think they can be 
blamed. Given what we have, it seems that proceeding with caution is a good 
idea, and even though there might be general consensus that the suggested 
name belongs in the rdf: namespace, I think a cautious approach would be to 
bind it later :-) But it is just an opinion, not a research based advice. 



Received on Thursday, 25 March 2021 16:30:05 UTC