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

Re: The RDF 1.1 Literal Quiz

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:36:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4DD63622.1080003@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I love this idea :)

On 05/18/2011 08:22 PM, 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 .

definitely one

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

prefer one

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

prefer no, but don't really mind

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

prefer yes

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

no strong opinion, but I guess that backward compatibility dictates yes

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

would not mind

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

yes (backward compatibility) but wound't mind eitherway

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

yes (backward compatibility) but wound't mind eitherway

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

prefer yes

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

no, please no

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

prefer no

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

no

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

prefer no

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

prefer yes (preferably with a renaming of rdf:PlainLiteral)

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

why not, but I've been converted to the rdf:PlainLiteral approach in the
meantime

> 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>

weakly prefer no, as I think this is the current behaviour

> 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>

tricky one; keep the current specified behaviour, whatever that is
(seems that it is "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)?
> 
> Q18. { <a> <b> "foo" . } => { <a> <b> "foo"^^xsd:string . }

if they are the same triple, yes (obviously)
else no (as it would break many expectations)

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

idem as Q18

> 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 . }

are you kidding me??

  pa
Received on Friday, 20 May 2011 09:36:59 GMT

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