On 11/10/14, 1:13 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> On 11/10/14 7:21 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> Yes, precisely. The constraints are a distraction that came in from
>> the discussion over whether it was a good idea to *require*
>> inferencing or not.
> But you must address the converse: whether you can forbid or ignore the
> inferencing inherent in types. In other words, if you aren't supporting
> inferencing, why are you using types?
I disagree in the sense that we shouldn't (can't?) try to restrict the
various ways people might want to interpret the data. We should talk
about what we are trying to enable instead and be pleased of other
re-uses that we haven't imagined (key benefits of open data and open
Perhaps *require* is a confusing word here? It seems important to
understand the infrastructure necessary in order to effectively use bf
data. If inference is necessary (avoiding the *r* word here) for
effective use, then that raises the bar, that has a cost.