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

Re: Datatyping literals: question and test cases

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:56:43 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b0cb9e710505171@[]>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, 
>>  >But, what about this:
>>  >
>>  >   _:x ex:prop "http://example.org/" .
>>  >   ex:prop rdfs:range xsd:anyURI .
>>  That depends on how xsd:anyURI defines its value space. If its the
>>  set of strings conforming to the URI syntax, then OK.
>ARGH! Pat, no!
>The WG has decided (with Nokia's dissent) that inlined literals
>denote their string components (i.e. string-semantics) and therefore
>the above range assertion is a datatype clash! It is *never* OK.
>Never ever ever. It is not possible for it to ever be OK.

Well, I said that IF xsd:anyURI is a set of strings.... I gather that 
it isn't; OK, then not OK.

>If it were to be valid, the literal must be explicitly typed, *always*
>    _:x ex:prop "http://example.org/"^^xsd:anyURI .
>Furthermore, not that xsd:anyURI is *not* a subtype even of xsd:string!
>I.e., even XML Schema says that a member of the value space of xsd:anyURI
>is *not* a member of the value space of xsd:string -- a URI is not a string!
>Now... if we had made the more rational decision to adopt value-based
>semantics for inlined literals, then Jeremy's example would have
>been fine and dandy, with the range assertion providing the interpretation
>of the inlined literal, and all would be well.
>But as it is, were stuck with this insane (IMO) string-based
>semantics that makes inlined literals and typed literals forever
>disjunct (even if we call inlined literals 'typed' as members of
>rdfs:StringLiteral or some such datatype).
>Inlined literals and rdfs:range will *never* work together, except
>in the single case of rdfs:StringLiteral. I wonder if folks appreciate
>that oddity.

You seem to be assuming that it is impossible for two different 
datatypes to have the same value space. I wasn't aware that this was 
a general rule. I would have no problem for example saying that 
rdfs:StringLiteral and xsd:String had the same value space. (NOt the 
same lexical space, but the same value space.)


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 Thursday, 31 October 2002 11:56:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:01 UTC