 |
 |
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 standards). 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. Cheers, Simeon