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

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

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:26:40 +0200
Message-ID: <007101c2912f$557fbb40$149316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDFCore Working Group" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


> Typed literals should be opaque nodes with identity, like URI-refs.
> Looking at parts of them for RDF interpretations is wrong.  This
> "ignoring the language in datatype interpretation except for
> rdf:XMLLiteral" is seeming increasingly stupid.

I've never quite understood why the lang tag was significant
in the case of rdf:XMLLiteral. Is it legacy from M&S or what?
Since the "wrapper" element is not normative and not really
present (and somewhat of a hack IMO) how is the actual meaning
of the literal affected by the lang tag ny differently than other 
types of literals? 

Can't we just treat all literals the same?

> If it said:
>   [[
>      <a> <b> XXX .
>      <c> <d> XXX .
> 
>    where XXX is any legal syntax for typed literal object node
> 
>    entails
> 
>      <a> <b> _:l .
>      <c> <d> _:l .
>   ]]

I prefer this model of entailment, because it clearly bases
the entailment on the denotation of the typed literal rather
than its representation, which is just a means to an end; that
end being the value, and once you have the value, the lexical
form and datatype is irrelevant.

> Then it would make more sense to me.

Agreed.

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 02:26:43 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:07 EDT