- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:27:47 +0100
- To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
I understand Shelley's concerns, but I think it's likely that this sort of thing does go beyond what can reasonably be expected to fit in the current Primer. Perhaps next time around a 10-page Primer and a 100-page Seconder will be the answer ;-) > But part of this problem about the lack of semantics >associated with containers and reification has always existed, it just >wasn't always clear. That is, it wasn't clear how much of the intended >meaning of, say, an Alt could actually be controlled by RDF, and how >much had to be based on application writers doing appropriate things. >RDF never, for example, specified an API that defined operations on >containers, or had a way of controlling whether an application really >used the first member of an Alt as the default value. So this time >around we're trying to be very clear about what things RDF by itself >guarantees, and what things are not going to be interoperable unless >everyone understands and implements the intended structure and behavior >the same way. Of course, you can get quite a lot done with these kinds >of general understandings, and I expect people are successfully using >containers and reification based on them. It's just that we're trying >to make a distinction between what RDF itself can realistically >guarantee, and additional characteristics of these constructs that have >to rely on people to "do the right thing". I suppose it's the assumption that developers will "do the right thing" that's been bugging me the most around the containers/collections/reification discussions. The contexts & graph 'packaging' issues are likely to be faced by a very large proportion of developers, and the quasi-avoidance of these issues within the spec seems to me to weaken the whole framework. Perhaps the answer is just to provide in the base specs a redirect to OWL constraints (personally I haven't figured out the approaches available for using OWL for this within an app, but it does sound viable). Cheers, Danny.
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 06:39:29 UTC