W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: The RDF 1.1 Literal Quiz

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 22:12:19 +0200
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <321F030F-CDD7-4431-A8E6-9CB5BF6AC4C8@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

On May 18, 2011, at 20:22 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
> Q1. Does this RDF graph (written in Turtle) have one triple?
> 
> <a> <b> 1 .
> <a> <b> "1"^^xsd:integer .

Yes

> 
> Q2. Does this RDF graph (written in Turtle) have one triple?
> 
> <a> <c> "foo" .
> <a> <c> "foo"^^xsd:string .

If we go ahead with what we are planning: yes

> 
> Q3. Is this be a valid Turtle file?
> 
> <a> <b> "foo"^^rdf:PlainLiteral .

No, the current plain literal spec does not allow for explicit reference to it in a datatype.

> 
> Q4. Is a parser allowed to unify "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string into a single form while parsing?

Yes

> 
> Q5. Is this a valid N-Triples file?
> 
> <a> <b> "foo" .

I do not know, we have not defined N-Triples behaviour. If it is a sub-syntax of turtle, then yes.

> 
> Q6. Is this a valid N-Triples file?
> 
> <a> <b> "foo"^^rdf:PlainLiteral .

No, see above

> 
> Q7. Is this a valid N-Triples file?
> 
> <a> <b> "foo"@en .
> 

Yes, see above

> Q8. Is this a valid N-Triples file?
> 
> <a> <b> "foo"^^xsd:string .
> 

Yes, see above


> Q9. Is this true in SPARQL?
> 
> datatype("foo") == xsd:string
> 

Yes


> Q10. Is this true in SPARQL?
> 
> datatype("foo") == error
> 

no

> Q11. Is this true in SPARQL?
> 
> datatype("foo") == rdf:PlainLiteral
> 

Depends how you decide! But according to one of the proposals (yours?) yes


> Q12. Is this true in SPARQL?
> 
> datatype("foo"@en) == xsd:string

no

> 
> Q13. Is this true in SPARQL?
> 
> datatype("foo"@en) == error
> 

No


> Q14. Is this true in SPARQL?
> 
> datatype("foo"@en) == rdf:PlainLiteral
> 


yes

> Q15. Is this true in SPARQL?
> 
> datatype("foo"@en) == rdflang:en

Well, this is pending, so the question cannot be answered now...

> 
> Q16. Does the literal in this RDF/XML fragment have a language tag?
> 
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="a" xml:lang="en">
>   <rdf:b>foo</rdf:b>
> </rdf:Description>
> 

yes

> Q17. Does the literal in this RDF/XML fragment have a language tag?
> 
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="a" xml:lang="en">
>   <rdf:b rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">foo</rdf:b>
> </rdf:Description>

no

> 
> For each of the following pairs of statements, if the statement on the left is true, then is the statement on the right true as well in a system that supports datatype inference (specifically, {xsd:string}-Entailment)?

I am not sure what {xsd:string}-Entailment is... At the moment, afaik, the D entailment in RDFS does not give you means to make inferences _among_ different datatypes... Ie, I am not sure of the answers

> 
> Q18. { <a> <b> "foo" . } => { <a> <b> "foo"^^xsd:string . }

probably yes, but that is not formal entailment, rather the definition we are looking at

> 
> Q19. { <a> <b> "foo"^^xsd:string . } => { <a> <b> "foo" . }

Same as above

> 
> Q20. { <a> <b> "foo" . } => { <a> <b> "foo"@en . }

No


> 
> Q21. { <a> <b> "foo"@en . } => { <a> <b> "foo" . }

No

> 
> Q22. { <a> <b> "foo"@en . } => { <a> <b> "foo"@en-GB . }

Undefined at the moment, but I would expect no


> 
> Q23. { <a> <b> "foo"@en-GB . } => { <a> <b> "foo"@en . }

Undefined at the moment, I would expet yes


> 
> Q24. { <a> <b> "foo"@fr . } => { <a> <b> "foo"@en . }
> 

Pas question!:-) No

I.


> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 20:10:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:42 GMT