W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2008

RE: plain literals without language tag compare xsd:string in RDF

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:31:03 +0000
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>, "Carroll, Jeremy John" <jeremy.carroll@hp.com>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C6119EC888AB@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>


I raised you question with my colleague, Jeremy Carrol (Cc'd) who responded as follows:

They are identical

"foo" owl:sameAs "foo"^^xsd:string .

is necessarily true.

as recorded in the RDF Test Cases doc


In a further exchange he also confirmed/clarified that it is neccessarily the case that:

        "1234" owl:sameAs "1234"^^xsd:string .

ie. (I think) that means that:

        "1234" owl:sameAs "1234"^^xsd:integer .  ## or some other numeric datatype.

is necessarily false (which is what I would expect).


Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-awwsw-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-awwsw-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
> Sent: 04 March 2008 15:29
> To: Pat Hayes
> Cc: public-awwsw@w3.org
> Subject: plain literals without language tag compare xsd:string in RDF
> Is there any utility to having these being disjoint classes?
> It would seem to me that it would be more sensible to say
> that any string that doesn't have a  language type or a
> datatype is inferred to be of type xsd:string.
> Did this situation come about because it was easier to make
> the RDF semantics look cleaner, or was there some principled
> reason for making the distinction?
> -Alan
Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 15:34:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:06 UTC