Re: Species Validation and at Risk Feature

At 10:08 AM +0100 9/26/03, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
>Jim Hendler wrote:
>
>>  As reported in a previous email, the MINDSWAP group has 
>>implemented a complete species validator that passes all tests. 
>>However, we were not able to work out the details of the so-called 
>>"B1,B2" feature just from the WG documents (and the we here 
>>includes me, Bijan and a programmer) -- however, Sean B's document 
>>[1] gave us the missing information we needed.  I would therefore 
>>like to suggest that we find a way to include some or all of Sean's 
>>in our recommendation track documents somewhere or, if we decide we 
>>want to include something like this whole document, consider making 
>>it available and citable in our documents.
>>   One possibility is that if Sean is willing to "finish" this, we 
>>could release it as a Working Group Note (like we did with the XML 
>>syntax) -- I think this would be a very valuable document and would 
>>make me a lot more sanguine if we go to PR without dropping the 
>>structure sharing stuff (to put it another way - with Sean's 
>>document available, I find B1/B2 to be implementable - without it, 
>>I question whether we actually provide enough information for 
>>non-WG members to implement it)
>
>Jim
>
>This depends partly on what you consider "finished" to mean. I 
>produced the document in question partly to assist me in the process 
>of building the parser/validator and partly in response to a request 
>from the WG. In terms of a *rough* description of how one might 
>build a parser/validator, I'd consider it pretty much finished.
>
>However, there are a number of quite crucial aspects that it doesn't 
>address -- for example how one handles anonymous individuals and 
>individual facts concerning them. Producing a document that really 
>covers this in detail (and making sure it was right) would be 
>probably just as much work again.
>
>My initial inclination is not to pursue this right now -- in some 
>ways building the RDF parser was for me a "necessary evil" :-) which 
>then allowed me to do some other stuff, rather than it being a core 
>activity.  However, if it's considered to be *really* important, 
>then I might be persuaded. Of course if the current document is 
>considered sufficient, then I'm more than happy to do some simple 
>tidying up and for it to be included in other stuff/published as 
>working note/nailed to the door of the kirk etc...

I was thinking that the current document could be cleaned up, 
reviewed by the WG, and released as a Working Group Note -- this 
would give it some status, make it easy for implementors to find, but 
not make it part of our recommendation - I think that would be a good 
status for it, and it would complement our document set.  it would be 
made very clear that this is an informative and incomplete document 
-- title could be something like "HInts for Implementors ...." or 
something like that


>
>Incidentally, the thanks here are really to Peter, as it was a 
>discussion with him at the DL workshop that crystallised ideas in my 
>mind for tackling the bnode stuff. I have also made a number of 
>minor updates to the document to reflect some additional comments 
>Peter made.
>


-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***

Received on Friday, 26 September 2003 09:28:31 UTC