[rdfweb-dev] Time's running out?

Victor Lindesay victor at vicsoft.co.uk
Mon Aug 11 21:57:27 UTC 2003


You seem to be painting a picture of a RDF as a way to represent data
and exchange data that's so loose that any form of validation is a waste
of time. In the real world that means unreliable and unusable. No wonder
RDF has slow take up.

I thought that RDF had RDF schemas.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Ley [mailto:jim at jibbering.com] 
> Sent: 11 August 2003 22:31
> To: Victor Lindesay; rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> Subject: Re: [rdfweb-dev] Time's running out?
> 
> 
> "Victor Lindesay" <victor at vicsoft.co.uk>
> > > "Victor Lindesay" <victor at vicsoft.co.uk>
> > > > As the domain of foaf:knows is declared as foaf:Person, all
> > > subjects in
> > > > statements with a foaf:knows (or any FOAF property with 
> a domain of
> > > > foaf:Person) predicate can be assumed to be of type foaf:Person.
> > >
> > > Not assumed to be they are, or the data is a wrong.
> >
> > What is the point of this remark? I have expressed myself 
> correctly. I
> > post on this list to talk about RDF and FOAF, not English.
> 
> What I mean is that anything that has a foaf:mbox propery is about a
> foaf:Person (actually it might be an Agent now I believe, 
> need to check.)
> So you don't "assume it's about a foaf:Person", it _is_ about 
> a foaf:Person,
> there is no assumption, it's a fact, or the data is wrong.  
> You cannot know
> it's wrong just from the triples (since any inconsistency in 
> domain/ranges
> may be because the other incompatible triple is wrong, not the Person
> class.)
> 
> > > Why do you care about the type at all?
> >
> > Because I want to write software that processes data correctly. You
> > might not care about crap data but I do.
> 
> Other than forcing very tight constraints on what is 
> authored, how do you
> propose to do this "validation"?
> 
> Jim.
> 
> 
> 




More information about the foaf-dev mailing list