Paper detail

RDF Validation Requirements - Evaluation and Logical Underpinning

There are many case studies for which the formulation of RDF constraints and the validation of RDF data conforming to these constraint is very important. As a part of the collaboration with the W3C and the DCMI working groups on RDF validation, we identified major RDF validation requirements and initiated an RDF validation requirements database which is available to contribute at http://purl.org/net/rdf-validation. The purpose of this database is to collaboratively collect case studies, use cases, requirements, and solutions regarding RDF validation. Although, there are multiple constraint languages which can be used to formulate RDF constraints (associated with these requirements), there is no standard way to formulate them. This paper serves to evaluate to which extend each requirement is satisfied by each of these constraint languages. We take reasoning into account as an important pre-validation step and therefore map constraints to DL in order to show that each constraint can be mapped to an ontology describing RDF constraints generically.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.