W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2002

Re: RDFCore Update

From: David Allsopp <d.allsopp@signal.qinetiq.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:29:25 +0000
Message-ID: <3C56B1C5.C33A303D@signal.qinetiq.com>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

> On the other hand, I am a fan of Conceptual  Graphs, and they do use the
> label block to specify the type.  But it is assumed that the processor has
> already sucked up the classification of types, which is not the case here,
> is it?

Not necessarily, but it would often be useful to do so. If you go around
gathering data from untrusted sites, and collecting  RDF triples, then
you could get into trouble, if they start making RDFS statements.  They
might introduce lots of subclass loops, or new range/domain constraints,
thereby poisoning your existing RDFS class hierarchy. 

I think it would often be the case in practice that schema triples will
be separated from data triples, for this reason.

Similarly, surely some systems will not wish to perform inference on
triples from untrusted sources in order to resolve missing or possibly
conflicting types? I might wish to read a chunk of RDF from somewhere,
and, if it doesn't conform to my (local) copy of some schema(s), reject
it entirely. I may not want to waste cycles trying to infer reams of
(possibly) nonsense.


/d{def}def/u{dup}d[0 -185 u 0 300 u]concat/q 5e-3 d/m{mul}d/z{A u m B u
m}d/r{rlineto}d/X -2 q 1{d/Y -2 q 2{d/A 0 d/B 0 d 64 -1 1{/f exch d/B
A/A z sub X add d B 2 m m Y add d z add 4 gt{exit}if/f 64 d}for f 64 div
setgray X Y moveto 0 q neg u 0 0 q u 0 r r r r fill/Y}for/X}for showpage
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 09:29:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:34 UTC