From: Mike Dean (mdean@bbn.com)
Date: 10/31/01
Jeff/Peter, Thanks for raising these issues. I invited Dave Rager, who's building the Validator, to join in the discussion. > > 6) The Validator generates a number of errors because it doesn't support > > the daml:collection parse type yet. Hopefully, that will be fixed in the > > near future. > > Hopefully by getting rid of daml:collection parsetype. :-) The current limitation is that RDF API doesn't support daml:collection. We're considering a switch to Jena, which does, but that's a non-trivial undertaking. > There already is a precise description of when to signal an error ---- > never! [:-), but only partly!] As long as the syntax is correct, there > is no reason to signal an error. We chose to call the Validator findings "indications" (although we further classify them into errors, warnings, and information) because there isn't a precise line (unlike XML validation). I think of the DAML Validator as being like Unix lint, pointing out potential problems. Looking at the content collected by the DAML Crawler [1] indicates that there is a strong need for tools to check namespaces, capitalization, XML schema datatypes, cardinality constraints, etc. However, there is a tension, as noted previously, between database-style integrity constraints and "inference opportunities". Thanks! Mike [1] http://www.daml.org/crawler/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST