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

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

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:00:59 +0100
To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF30FBC8D1.77712E61-ONC1256C78.0039F34F-C1256C78.003C96E8@agfa.be>


[...]

> So:
> 1. you always get the basic new-bnode entailment, for any node
> whatsoever, illformed or not.

OK

> 2. If the literal is simple (not datatyped) then it might hav a lang
> tag, and in that case the identity of the literal is detemined by the
> pair of the literal string and the lang tag, so for example
>
> aaa bbb "chat"@@fr .
> ccc ddd "chat"@@en .
>
> does not entail
>
> aaa bbb _:x .
> ccc ddd _:x .

OK

> 3. if the literal is typed by datatype, datatype is a Datatype and
> you check the datatype and the literal is illformed, then 1. is *all*
> you can infer, and you are allowed to flag an error. (And you know
> that if anyone says that this thing is in rdfs:Literal, then they are
> wrong.)

OK

> 3. If all the above but the typed literal is wellformed, then:
>      3a. If its an rdf:XMLLiteral and there is a lang tag then you
> pass the tag to the XML parser, ie it is absorbed into the XML part
> of the literal.
>      3b. you know the typed literal denotes something in the datatype
class
>      3c. you know it denotes a literal value
>
> 3c follows from 3b in RDFS since you know that the datatype class is
> a subclass of rdfs:Literal, but I thought Id mention it.

OK (had make a correction for rdf:XMLLiteral; thanks for clarifying)

> 4. If all the above and you know from the datatype mavens that two
> datatype lexical forms denote the same value,  then you can
> substitute one of them for the other in any typed literal in any
> triple.

OK

> 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?

maybe later ;-)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 06:02:44 EST

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