On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 11:29:04AM -0500, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> The issue is not between CWA and OWA. It is whether or not an
> application consuming Bibframe triples will be able to operate
> correctly over them without using RDFS inferencing. It is not possible
> to "require" any given set of triples in the world, Bibframe aside, to
> have explicit typing, at least not in any currently widely-understood
> way. On the other hand, if it is not possible to interpret a set of
> Bibframe-using triples into a meaningful bibliographic universe
> without inferencing, then you _have_ required the presence of
> inferencing _in applications_. There is an enormous difference between
> requiring some condition on some set of triples (which is the interest
> of the groups you mention below) and requiring a particular capability
> from applications dealing with a particular kind of data, which is
> what this discussion was about.

I have no argument at all with this practical application requirement.
But again, if your data must meet certain requirements for the purposes
of applications, should this not be done in an application profile aka
"BIBFRAME profile" [1]?

For example, if you want type to be stated explicitly in your data, you
could formulate a Property Template for a rdf:type statement (e.g., as
per section 2.3 and the example in section 5.2).

The part I'm not getting is why this thread is discussing
application-specific requirements for structural constraints on data
without reference to BIBFRAME profiles, which are _all about_ specifying
structural constraints on data.

Tom

[1] http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/bibframe-profiles.html

-- 
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>