W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2012

RDF-ISSUE-109 (ill-typed-so-what): What's the consequence of a literal being ill-typed? [RDF Concepts]

From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:11:34 +0000
Message-Id: <E1TWkcg-0001SY-Is@tibor.w3.org>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-109 (ill-typed-so-what): What's the consequence of a literal being ill-typed? [RDF Concepts]

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/109

Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
On product: RDF Concepts

(Raising and issue on this for referencing in the upcoming new Concepts WD)

What's the relevance of the distinction between “graphs containing ill-typed literals” and “inconsistent graphs” in the Semantics?

The text stresses that the presence of an ill-typed literals does not constitute an inconsistency. But why does the distinction matter? Is there any reason anybody needs to know about this distinction who isn't interested in the arcana of the model theory?

>From the perspective of someone who authors RDF data, or works with RDF data, they both seem like belonging to the same class of problem, and I'm a bit at a loss as to how to explain the difference.

What should an implementation do? Should authors avoid generating such graphs? Should consumers reject it? Is an implementation that rejects ill-formed xsd:dates conforming?
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 09:11:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT