Re: RDFS interpretation of typed literals

Graham Klyne wrote:

[...]

> So I think the above statement is either True or False, depending on the 
> interpretation used.  So far, so good.  But is this an RDFS-entailment:
> 
>   ex:s ex:p "foo"^^ddd .
> |=
>   ex:s ex:p _:b .
>   _:b rdf:type rdfs:Literal .
> 
> Intuitively, I would have said "yes", but as far as I can tell from the 
> semantics spec, the answer is "no".  This is an entailment only in a 
> {RDFS,ddd}-interpretation, because it is only a D-interpretation that 
> places the required constraints on the relationships between 
> I(rdfs:Literal), LV and IL.
> 
> Am I correct?  Is this what we expected?

As I recall, the way we handle datatype errors, i.e. where "foo" is not 
in the lexical space of ddd, is to say that "foo"^^ddd is not a member 
of rdfs:Literal.  Therefore it is only appropriate datatype 
interpretations that can make this entailment.

Brian