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

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

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:43:01 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b0cba019555bf08@[]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
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.

Hmmm. So an literal can have three components: a string, a dtype and 
a lang tag, even when the dtype isn't rdf:XMLLiteral??

I just want to get this very clear, as I want to have all the cases 
listed in the basic MT rules. Right now there are cases I am missing, 

>>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
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf
>  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.

Yes, anything entails the empty graph, because the empty graph is 
always true. It also entails

<a> <b> _:x .

>>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.

Yes, I tend to agree at this stage. Still, it would have been fun.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 14:43:07 UTC

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