Re: DATATYPE("abc")=string? note

On Nov 15, 2005, at 4:27 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> Persuant to
> 2005-11-15T15:28:13Z <DanC_lap> PROPOSED: to publish 1.538 +
>                      EBV/valueTesting note, plus
> 		     rdfs:Datatype/DATATYPE change in table,
>                      DATATYPE("abc")=string? note, plus, we hope,
> 		     edited changelog by DanC
> I've updated the DATATYPE function definition and appended the
> <issue/> below:

this looks quite good... one nit, to show I read it...

> [[
> rdfs:Datatype   datatype (rdf:literal arg)
> If arg is a typed literal, as defined in Resource Description
> Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax [CONCEPTS] Section 6.5
> "RDF Literals", datatype returns the datatype URI of arg. It produces
> a type error if arg is an untyped literal.
> <issue>
>   A literal is a Unicode string,

I think you mean plain literal.

>  which correlates to an
>   xsd:string. There is some interest in changing the last sentence of
>   the preceeding paragraph to
>     It produces a type error if arg has a language tag, and returns
>     <xsd:string> if arg is an untyped literal without a language tag.
>   This would make "asdf" and "asdf"^^xsd:string indisguishable to
>   standard SPARQL queries. Some data maintenance queries (those
>   searching for untyped literals) would require extension functions,
>   and all untyped literals with no language tag would follow RDF
>   Semantics xsd:string entailment. Please send related comments to
> </issue>
> ]]
> Anyone have wording improvements?
Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 22:36:47 UTC