- From: Roland Schwaenzl <Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:27:40 +0100 (MET)
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, d.allsopp@signal.qinetiq.com
David Allsopp wrote: > I understand your rationale, but do you see my point that a user of an > RDF parser would reasonably expect it to produce a valid RDF graph as > defined by the M&S in all cases? Are these constraints not an integral > part of the RDF standard? If such checking is not in the parser, where > should it be? Are we saying that to make any use of RDF, one must > always include a DAML-like reasoning engine as well as an RDF parser? > > The constraints here are quite specific, so I am not clear why they > should be pushed out to a higher-level language rather than just being > implemented directly in code. > RDF M&S should be clarified on what the class "Statement" exactly stands for. The comments given in the class definitions at http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# and http://www.w3.org/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/ differ. rs
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 09:27:44 UTC