- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:51:35 -0400
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "sandro@w3.org" <sandro@w3.org>, "public-rdf-text@w3.org" <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com> wrote: >> Incidentally, the fact that you can filter using the DATATYPE function >> in sparql is another hint that something is amiss. By my earlier >> analysis, the DATATYPE function should never return rdf:PlainLiteral, >> according to our spec. >> >> -Alan > > Quite - only if the new text is in force and then only if suitable D-entailment is being applied or the data path goes through OWL2. Are you saying that DATATYPE *could* return rdf:PlainLiteral under these circumstances? By my analysis it couldn't, even then. -Alan > > If there is current RDF data that writes directly ^^rdf:PlainLiteral, and is queried as simple entailment, the answer to DATATYPE is rdf:PlainLiteral. Otherwise there is a (small) backwards-incompatible change required of existing SPARQL implementations (the current SPARQL-WG is technically not chartered to make that change but lets do the right thing, he said unofficially). > > Andy > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 14:52:41 UTC