- From: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:33:26 -0400
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
I am trying to resolve ambiguity with respect to literals for which the lexical value is not permitted by the datatype. E.g., "string"^^xsd:decimal "1.5"^^xsd:integer The question is whether such literals are (1) prohibited by the structural specification or (2) inconsistent according to the Direct Semantics. I find (2) to be more intuitive and I think it more closely aligns with the RDF Based Semantics (to which I defer to Michael Schneider). But... I believe that the intent of the current specifications is (1). SSFS, section 5.7 says "The lexical form MUST conform to restrictions of the datatype, and it is mapped to a data value as specified by the datatype." And in the Direct Semantics document, the literal interpretation function is undefined for such literals. If (1) is correct, then I suggest rewording the quoted sentence to remove confusion due to the phrase "restrictions of the datatype". E.g., I believe the following is less ambiguous and reuses the wording from the definition of datatype map. "The lexical form MUST be an element of the lexical space of the datatype, and it is mapped to a data value as specified by the datatype." If (2) is correct, then the quoted sentence should be removed and the Direct Semantics should be extended to handle this case (which I believe would be a relatively minor change). -- Mike Smith Clark & Parsia
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 16:34:03 UTC