- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:06:00 -0500
- To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>, "Carroll, Jeremy John" <jeremy.carroll@hp.com>
This would seem to be at odds with the RDFS documentation: 6.5.1 Literal Equality Two literals are equal if and only if all of the following hold: - The strings of the two lexical forms compare equal, character by character. - Either both or neither have language tags. - The language tags, if any, compare equal. - Either both or neither have datatype URIs. - The two datatype URIs, if any, compare equal, character by character. In this case, the 4th clause is violated. -Alan On Mar 7, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote: > Alan, > > I raised you question with my colleague, Jeremy Carrol (Cc'd) who > responded as follows: > > <quote> > They are identical > > "foo" owl:sameAs "foo"^^xsd:string . > > is necessarily true. > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test011a.nt > entails > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test011b.nt > as recorded in the RDF Test Cases doc > > Jeremy > </quote> > > 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). > > Cheers, > > Stuart > -- > 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 Saturday, 8 March 2008 15:06:26 UTC