- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:11:54 +0000
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 15:55 20/11/2002 +0000, Jan Grant wrote: >On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Brian McBride wrote: > > > The way this is put suggests that > > > > <a> <b> "10"^^xsd:integer . > > > > entails all other datatype representations of the same value. > >Within _one_ datatype, that's true - this is rule rdfD 2 in the current >MT. > >For multiple datatypes, the MT says this: > >[[ >These rules do not support any entailments based on identity between >values of different datatypes. An obvious generalization of the second >rule would permit such conclusions, but questions of identity between >items in value spaces of two different datatypes should be referred to >the authorities who defined the datatypes. >]] Oh yes, you are right. We are straying into specifying things about xsd that are not up to us. But I do think we have to do that for the 10 and 010 cases. I do think those need to be changed, but would want a second opinion. >- so where I've indicated test cases for equivalence between typed >literals in different datatypes, these probably fall into the same >category as JJC's boolean test case: that is, we attach a note to them >or something but don't approve them as part of the subset of test cases >that goes with the test case document. People might want to implement >those entailments, but it's "above and beyond the call". Right agree. >Like I said, the test cases I've set out are primarily intended to be >illustrative of the various issues surrounding DTed literals. Hopefully >on Friday we can decide what to keep and what to chuck out. I'm just trying to get a march on Friday; not trying to give you a hard time. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 11:10:38 UTC