- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:31:03 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>, "Carroll, Jeremy John" <jeremy.carroll@hp.com>
Alan, I raised you question with my colleague, Jeremy Carrol (Cc'd) who responded as follows: <quote> They are identical "foo" owl:sameAs "foo"^^xsd:string . is necessarily true. http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test011a.nt entails http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test011b.nt as recorded in the RDF Test Cases doc Jeremy </quote> In a further exchange he also confirmed/clarified that it is neccessarily the case that: "1234" owl:sameAs "1234"^^xsd:string . ie. (I think) that means that: "1234" owl:sameAs "1234"^^xsd:integer . ## or some other numeric datatype. is necessarily false (which is what I would expect). Cheers, Stuart -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England > -----Original Message----- > From: public-awwsw-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-awwsw-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg > Sent: 04 March 2008 15:29 > To: Pat Hayes > Cc: public-awwsw@w3.org > Subject: plain literals without language tag compare xsd:string in RDF > > > Is there any utility to having these being disjoint classes? > It would seem to me that it would be more sensible to say > that any string that doesn't have a language type or a > datatype is inferred to be of type xsd:string. > > Did this situation come about because it was easier to make > the RDF semantics look cleaner, or was there some principled > reason for making the distinction? > > -Alan > > >
Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 15:34:32 UTC