W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > January 2013

how to make ill-typed literals inconsistent - ISSUE 109

From: Patel-Schneider, Peter <Peter.Patel-Schneider@nuance.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:59:55 +0000
Message-Id: <D6EBDDC48FED4E42984B5FC64A7EF597BD91D7@SOM-EXCH01.nuance.com>
To: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
During the call today there was some discussion of ill-typed literals.

*IF* one wants ill-typed literals to be inconsistent then one has to tweak the semantics.
The effect is (roughly) to require that the interpretations for literals whose datatype is in the datatype map belong to the value space for that datatype.  This looks a lot like the situation where that literal is range-required to be in the datatype.

As far as wording goes, RDF semantics would change something like:

Current:
if <aaa,x> is in D then for any typed literal "sss"^^ddd in V with I(ddd) = x , 
 if sss is in the lexical space of x then IL("sss"^^ddd) = L2V(x)(sss), otherwise IL("sss"^^ddd) is not in LV

Revised:
if <aaa,x> is in D then for any typed literal "sss"^^ddd in V with I(ddd) = x , 
  IL("sss"^^ddd) is in LV
if <aaa,x> is in D then for any typed literal "sss"^^ddd in V with I(ddd) = x , 
 if sss is in the lexical space of x then IL("sss"^^ddd) = L2V(x)(sss), otherwise IL("sss"^^ddd) is not in LV

This may look odd, but the net result is that there can be no models for ill-typed literals.


Note:  I'm not here an advocate for this change, just noting how it could be done.

peter



Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 17:01:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:53 GMT