- From: Daniele Capursi <capursi@sword.it>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:31:35 +0200
- To: "Dave Reynolds" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Thank you very much! Your explanations were concise but complete and very useful! Please let me ask you something that might be well-known, but that I don't know (see at the end of this email). > > The higher level of RDF validation is RDF Schema validation, which tests > > that range and domain constraints match the subjects and objects of > > actual statements. The W3C RDF validator does not perform such checks. > > Actually, AFAIK, such constraints can't be expressed in pure RDFS. So it is > entirely reasonable for the W3C validator to not perform checks for them. An > application could choose to interpret RDFS domain/range declarations as somehow > exclusive and checkable but that is not part of the RDFS specification and so > should not be part of the W3C validator. > > To (ab)use Graham's recent example on the multiple rdf:type issues. If I have an > RDF schema that includes: > ex:transport rdf:type rdfs:Property . > ex:transport rdfs:range ex:MeansOfTransport . > > and I then check an RDF file containing: > urn:me ex:transport urn:Dobbin . > urn:Dobbin rdf:type foo:Horse . > Then all I can conclude is "that is interesting, urn:Dobbin must be both a > foo:Horse and an ex:MeansOfTransport". This might or might not be reasonable. > > If we then encounter the declaration: > ex:MeansOfTransport rdfs:subClassOf ex:MechanicalDevice . > then we would conclude that urn:Dobbin is also an ex:MechanicalDevice. > Given the suggestive names then as humans we might be less happy with something > being both a Horse and a MechanicalDevice but for RDFS processing there is no > reason to believe something can't be both. > So what's the use of an RDF schema? How can I prevent using a property in an improper way? e.g. I want that it's possible to say that a thing is an Author only if that thing is a Human. I don't want to say that, since A is an Author, A must be a human! That's not _validating_ (i.e. checking), that's inferring (i.e. saying new things)! So what type of constraint can be _validated_, according to w3c? Thanks a lot in advance. Regards. Daniele Capursi
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 09:31:34 UTC