Hi Antoine,
> Hi Lars, Karen,
>
> On 6/9/15 10:22 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > On 6/9/15 2:18 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> >>> R-210 "Define valid properties"
> >>> >http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/423
> >>> >The title is slightly confusing: a statement with an 'allowed' property may
> still
> >>> >be 'invalid' (because its value doesn't have the right form, for example).
> We
> >>> >suggest to replace it by "Define allowed properties"
> >> I'd suggest "Define allowed properties for a context"
> >
> >
> > This gets very complex, and it reminds me that we haven't had the
> conversation about terminology that we might need -- context, graph, node??
> >
> > The other complexity is whether "valid" is a closed or an open state. That is, if
> I say:
> >
> > valid properties are: A, B, C
> >
> > and my data also has property D, is that a violation of my rule? In the W3C
> group this is being talked about as "open" vs. "closed" graphs. There are times
> when you might want to say "only A, B, or C" [1], and other times when you
> want to say "A, B, or C, and I'll ignore anything else." If with "ignore anything
> else" there is the question of: will I keep it, or drop it on the floor because I
> don't know what to do with it?
> >
> > So you can see that this potentially becomes a number of more specific sub-
> requirements. Do we want to take those on? It seems that unless we do get
> more specific, what we have said cannot be coded.
> >
> > kc
> > [1] Then there's the "OR" problem - exclusive or not. And that compounds the
> sub-questions above.
> >
>
>
> Not putting 'context' too much in spotlight was one of the reasons we've
> suggested the simple "Define allowed properties"
> I think I can live with Lars' suggestion, though. "context" is vague enough, I
> expect it will not conflict with whatever technical choice is made later.
>
> "valid" is a tricky point, indeed, and that's why we're suggested "allowed". If a
> rule says that only properties A, B, C are allowed then if there's a description
> with property D, it's a violation of the rule. End of story!
Well, Karen does have a point: there is a difference between "allowed" and "exclusively allowed". "Define exclusively allowed properties for a context" sounds a bit weird, though...
Best,
Lars
|