W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2005

equating simple literal and xsd:string

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:58:02 -0500
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051219145802.GU412@w3.org>
Exploring the consequences of
  "asdf" = "asdf"^^xsd:string

UNIFY:
We could be ambitious and say, for SPARQL's purposes, they are the
same term. At that point, we need to define answers to:

  №	test			  current interpretation
  1. "asdf" < "asdf"^^xsd:string	type error		???
  2. DATATYPE("asdf")			type error		xsd:string
  3. DATATYPE(STR(<asdf>))		type error		xsd:string
  4. LANG("asdf"^^xsd:string)		""			???
  5. xsd:string("asdf")			"asdf"^^xsd:string	"asdf"

№ 1 comes up when ordering ("Alice", "Alice"^^xsd:string) .


OVERLOAD =:
Another approach is to define a couple more = operators:
  simple literal = xsd:string
  xsd:string = simple literal

This seems a lot shorter to me, though skirts around the big issue of
whether DAWG should tell the world that THEY ARE THE SAME.


Andy, Steve, your implementations were cited as proof that the world
already does it this way. Do your implementations conflate the two
terms? My guess is that Steve's does, and Andy's does something more
like test positive for
  sameTermAs("asdf", "asdf"^^xsd:string)

DanC, which are you advocating, and do you have specific textual
changes that we can evaluate?
-- 
-eric

office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
                        Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
                        5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
                        JAPAN
        +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +81.90.6533.3882

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

Received on Monday, 19 December 2005 14:58:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT