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

Re: The RDF 1.1 Literal Quiz

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 21:55:10 +0100
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F829BE8C-32A0-49DD-B473-91451DEB4621@garlik.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
On 2011-05-18, at 19:22, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> The RDF 1.1 Literal Quiz
> ------------------------
> 
> Let's pretend we live in the future and RDF 1.1 has just been published, including this working group's attempt to clean up string literals.
> 
> Now here's a quiz with some RDF trivia questions.
> 
> What are the answers that you'd like to see? Please keep them short -- along the lines of “Yes”, “No”, “Don't care”, “Don't prefer but ok”, “Oh yes please please please”, “WTF!?!?”, “Formal objection!”
> 
> (I tried to phrase the questions in terms of user-visible behaviour and not spec-internal mechanisms. I hope we can get some non-controversial test cases out of this, and pinpoint where we disagree on desired behaviour. If you provide responses, then feel free to add additional questions.)
> 
> 
> 
> 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 .

Yes.

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

Syntactically, but ideally it would raise some error.

> 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" .

Yes.

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

See Turtle.

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Probably.

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

Probably not.

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

No.

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

Probably.

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

Probably not.

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

No.

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

Don't care.

> 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>

Yes.

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

Don't care.

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

Yes.

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

No.

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

Don't care.

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

No.

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

Don't care.

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

No.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 20:55:41 GMT

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