W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Type of (the denotation of) a plain literal

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:41:14 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF64131DB5.A99D1EA0-ONC1256CB0.00807361-C1256CB0.008225E7@agfa.be>

> > but
> > :Jenny :age "11"
> > does not entail
> > :Jenny :age "11"^^xsd:string
> > nor does the latter entail the former
> >
> > -- ,
> > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> My view is that in XSD datatype entailment it does!  At least modulo a
> cleanup of the RDF MT with respect to untyped literals.
> This is because I believe, based on a close examination of the XML Schema
> Datatyping document, that the L2V mapping for xsd:string takes Unicode
> strings to themselves.

I'm maybe abstracting too much from the APPROVED testcase

<test:NegativeEntailmentTest rdf:about

   <test:approval rdf:resource
="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0131.html" />
     From decisions listed in

      <test:NT-Document rdf:about
="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test009a.nt" />

      <test:NT-Document rdf:about
="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test009b.nt" />


rewriting the special case of "abc"^^xsd:string as "abc"
could work I think, but I see a lot of trouble when
"abc" would be interpreted as a typed literal
(especially for legacy cases)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 18:41:59 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:22 EDT