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

Re: The RDF 1.1 Literal Quiz

From: Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 12:35:30 +0100
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <27D04D21-D40E-4D5D-8F42-44F5B0973C00@garlik.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
<snip/>

On 18 May 2011, 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 .

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

Yes please

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

yup

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

as above ^^

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

Yup

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

Yup

> 
> 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

no

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

yes

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

no

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

no thanks

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

no

> 
> 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, as now

> 
> 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, as now

> 
> 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 . }

dont bothered which way round above or below

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


dont bothered which way round above or below


> 
> 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

Mischa

> 
> 

___________________________________
Mischa Tuffield PhD
Email: mischa.tuffield@garlik.com
Homepage - http://mmt.me.uk/
+44(0)208 439 8200  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 Friday, 20 May 2011 11:36:06 GMT

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