Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml

From: Mike Dean (
Date: 10/31/01


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".




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST