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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-79 (undefined-datatype): What is the value of a literal whose datatype IRI is not a datatype? [RDF Concepts]

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:50:54 +0100
Message-Id: <E5965211-835F-4EE9-A1A4-AB72198D0698@w3.org>
Cc: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 9 Nov 2011, at 21:53, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> RDF-ISSUE-79 (undefined-datatype): What is the value of a literal whose datatype IRI is not a datatype? [RDF Concepts]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/79
> 
> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
> On product: RDF Concepts
> 
> The RDF Concepts spec (in both 2004 and 1.1 versions) does not answer the question what's the value of a literal where the datatype IRI doesn't actually denote a datatype, like <"foo",http://example.com/not-a-datatype>. This is surprising, as there is a section that normatively defines the value of *all other* literals.
> 
> There are many possibilities:
> 
> (i) the spec leaves it undefined
> (ii) that's not a valid RDF graph
> (iii) it's a valid RDF graph, but the value, if any, is unknown
> (iv) it's a valid RDF graph, and the literal is ill-typed
> 
> This should be made explicit.
> 
> The status quo is (i). I believe that the model theory says it's (iii).

In a way, (iii), if indeed that is the case, is also the status quo. In any case, (iii) sounds ok to me. 

Ivan



> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 05:51:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT