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: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:18:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4EC13148.4040507@emse.fr>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


Le 10/11/2011 18:43, Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
> Alex,
>
> On 10 Nov 2011, at 16:33, Alex Hall wrote:
>> That's almost exactly what RDF Semantics 2004 says: "Typed literals whose type is not in the datatype map of the interpretation are treated as before, i.e. as denoting some unknown thing." (Section 5.1)
>
> Oh, I thought I carefully read all of Section 5 but had missed that sentence. That addresses the situation indeed.
>
> I note the following sentence:
>
> [[
> The condition does not require that the URI reference in the typed literal be the same as the associated URI reference of thedatatype; this allows semantic extensions which can express identity conditions on URI references to draw appropriate conclusions.
> ]]

I do not understand this phrasing.

>
> So if the graph contains "xxx"^^<not-a-datatype>, then the literal might still acquire a value because<not-a-datatype>  might be owl:sameAs xsd:string, but not in any of the standard RDF entailment regimes.

In RDF or RDFS, it is not possible to say that something is not a 
datatype. Applications decide what are the datatypes in their local 
datatype map. A datatype map cannot be specified in RDF.

> So the formally correct thing to say would NOT be:
>
> “The value of a literal whose datatype IRI is not in the datatype map is unknown.”
>
> but:
>
> “The value of a literal whose datatype IRI does not denote a datatype in the datatype map is unknown.”

Ok but "the value" seems to indicate that, although it is not know, it 
is a value in some kind of value space (an instance of rdfs:Literal). 
But it could be a resource outside the extension of rdfs:Literal.

>
> Oh well.
>
>> I would prefer to have literals of type rdf:LangString denote themselves in all interpretations rather than some unknown thing, but I don't know how best to make it happen.  Clearly it can't be done through the L2V mechanism.
>
> That's easy – a new row in the first table in Section 1.4:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#gddenot
>
> If E is a language-tagged string with lexical form aaa and language tag ttt in V then I(E) =<aaa,ttt>
>
> and appropriate exceptions have to be stated in some places that talk about datatype IRIs – “if the datatype IRI is not rdf:langString, then …”

Yep, very good.

>
> Best,
> Richard

-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 15:19:11 GMT

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