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

Re: Ill-typed vs. inconsistent?

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:33:45 +0000
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <DD177C9B-893D-4FC9-A280-6286C9404E3F@cyganiak.de>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
On 14 Nov 2012, at 14:48, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> The more I think of this issue, the more I believe that ill-typed literals should be a syntax error. An application that supports a datatype should reject RDF graphs that do not write literals of that type properly.

This would invalidate tons of existing RDF, so I don't think it's in the spirit of our charter:

[[
For all new features, backwards compatibility with the current version of RDF is of great importance. This means that all efforts should be made so that any valid RDF graphs (in terms of the RDF 2004 version) should remain valid in terms of a new version of RDF;
]]

> Note that in OWL 2 Structural Specification and Functional Style Syntax, it is required that:
> 
> "The lexical form of each literal occurring in an OWL 2 DL ontology MUST belong to the lexical space of the literal's datatype."

But that's just for OWL DL, right? Which isn't a proper extension of RDF Semantics anyway, right? How are ill-typed  literals treated in the rest of OWL?

Best,
Richard
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 19:34:28 GMT

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