W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: do bad datatype literals denote [was Re: Datatype test cases ...]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:06:43 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 10:42 20/11/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote:


>Oh, I thought that lang tags simply couldn't be attached to datatyped 
>literals other than rdf:XMLLiterals, so this would be a syntax error. 
>That's what the graph syntax rules seem to say. Is that wrong??

Well, I don't think its what they do say.  I think its what they should 
say, but that is not what the WG agreed.


>It works but for a different reason. Perhaps I should spell this out more 
>in the semantics doc.
>Making the denotation be something arbitrary in this case (ie not a 
>literal value, but otherwise it could be anything) means that the ONLY 
>entailment you can get is what you would get from basic graph 
>interpretations, which is replacing the bad literal by a new bnode:

Hmmm, are you saying that it does not entail the emtpy graph.  I think I 
wasn't clear; I'm trying to clarify precisely the test case proposed by 
jan, non-well-formed-literal-2, in


  The test case is (something like)

   <a> <b> "Arggggggg"^^xsd:integer .

does not entail the empty graph.

I think the MT says it does, but I'm appealing to you for confirmation.


>5 (??) If all the above and you know from the datatype mavens that some 
>properties are true on some datatype values, then you can conclude some 
>more triples using those properties. (Jos' idea) ??
>Im not sure about the last one: do we want to go there?

Please no.

Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 12:06:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:02 UTC