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

Re: The RDF 1.1 Literal Quiz

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 11:12:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4DD5335F.5090609@thefigtrees.net>
To: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 5/19/2011 10:51 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> I have some more questions:
>
>
>
> Q25. Is this a single triple?
>
> <joe> <nbChildren> "2"^^xs:decimal .
> <joe> <nbChildren> "+2.000"^^xs:decimal .

No.

> Q26. Is this a single triple?
>
> <joe> <nbChildren> "2"^^xs:byte .
> <joe> <nbChildren> "2"^^xs:positiveInteger .

No.

> Q27. Does the following query give <joe> as an answer, when asked
> against the previous graphs?
>
> SELECT ?person WHERE { ?person <nbChildren> 2 }

Not when queried with standard SPARQL simple entailment semantics.

Lee

>
>
>
> Regards,
> AZ.
>
> Le 19/05/2011 16:40, Alex Hall a écrit :
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Richard
>> Cyganiak<richard@cyganiak.de>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 - I thought the whole point of this exercise was to enforce that by
>> settling on a single representation for that in the abstract syntax.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Q3. Is this be a valid Turtle file?
>>>
>>> <a> <b> "foo"^^rdf:PlainLiteral .
>>>
>>
>> Valid Turtle, invalid RDF.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Q4. Is a parser allowed to unify "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string into a
>>> single
>>> form while parsing?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and hopefully required to.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 .
>>>
>>
>> Valid N-Triples, invalid RDF.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Q10. Is this true in SPARQL?
>>>
>>> datatype("foo") == error
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Q11. Is this true in SPARQL?
>>>
>>> datatype("foo") == rdf:PlainLiteral
>>>
>>
>> I hope not.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Q12. Is this true in SPARQL?
>>>
>>> datatype("foo"@en) == xsd:string
>>>
>>
>> Probably not.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Q13. Is this true in SPARQL?
>>>
>>> datatype("foo"@en) == error
>>>
>>
>> Don't care.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Q14. Is this true in SPARQL?
>>>
>>> datatype("foo"@en) == rdf:PlainLiteral
>>>
>>
>> Don't care.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>>
>>
>> Don't care.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>>
>>
>> Don't care.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 . }
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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" . }
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Q22. {<a> <b> "foo"@en . } => {<a> <b> "foo"@en-GB . }
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Q23. {<a> <b> "foo"@en-GB . } => {<a> <b> "foo"@en . }
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Q24. {<a> <b> "foo"@fr . } => {<a> <b> "foo"@en . }
>>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 15:13:00 GMT

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