- From: Seth Ladd <seth@brivo.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:56:41 -0400
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> The validator should write out: > "resource X has object Y defined as "creator" but Y is not of required > range mm:Artist" > "resource X is not of any known class" I don't believe that RDFS prescribes correctness in the way you want it to. (excuse the sloppy rdf/xml) RDFS adds information to your model. So when you say <mb:Song rdf:about="xxx"> <dc:creator rdf:resource="yyy"/> </mb:Song> and you apply your RDFS of: <rdfs:Property rdf:about="dc:creator"> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="mb:Artist"/> </rdfs:Property> You (or your rdf processor) then know that the resource "yyy" is an Artist. I'm not sure it's correct to say that a RDFS can validate in the way you want. It's not XML Schema, for instance. It has a different purpose. I was confused, too, because it also uses the word Schema. This is actually a good thing, though: Say you want to ask "Show me all the mb:Artist's". In the original rdf, there is no triple that states a resource if of type mb:Artist. But... Because RDFS says that dc:creator's are mb:Artists, and "yyy" is a dc:creator, your query will return "yyy" as an mb:Artist (even though it's not specified anywhere!). So, RDFS's purpose is help describe RDF resources and properties. It's not really around to Validate (in the sense that I think you want it to). I hope that helps some, Seth
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 09:57:22 UTC