# ISSUE-93 (Datatype IRIs): Should datatype IRIs map to the datatypes themselves [BLD]

From: Rule Interchange Format Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:30:53 -0500 (EST)

Message-Id: <20090217153053.47B3D4DD65@crusher.w3.org>

ISSUE-93 (Datatype IRIs): Should datatype IRIs map to the datatypes themselves [BLD]

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/93

Raised by: Christopher Welty
On product: BLD

During the addition of the "general guards", Jos observed that a rif:iri constant should denote an actual datatype, so one can speak about actual datatypes when speaking about the types of literals.

He suggested:

It would have been best if in BLD semantic structures the IRIs
of datatypes are mapped to the corresponding datatypes, e.g., xsd:string
is mapped to the XML schema string datatype.  One could then, in DTB,
speak only about values and datatypes, which will be much more
convenient and much more elegant.

I propose to extend the definition of semantic structure [1] by adding
the following conditions to point 1 of the definition:
- If a constant c \in Const is an IRI constant "d"^^rif:iri and d is a
datatype identifier, i.e., d \in DTS, then I_C(d) is the datatype [2]
identified by d.

redoing last call.  The only real implication it has is that equality
statements of the form

xsd:integer=xsd:string

are currently not inconsistent, but with the proposed change they do
become inconsistent.
But we anyway don't want people to write this kind of statement; in
fact, people should not use datatype identifiers outside of constants
and isLiteralOfType/isLiteralNotOfType statements.

See the thread starting here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Feb/0004.html

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Semantic_Structures

Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 15:31:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:54 UTC