- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:53:39 +0100
- To: Jeen Broekstra <j.broekstra@tue.nl>
- CC: DAWG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Jeen Broekstra wrote:
> Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>> Jeen Broekstra wrote:
>>> Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>>
...
>>> In other words, two literals with the same lexical form only. It does
>>> not tell us how to order a plain/simple literal and a typed literal with
>>> different lexical values (for example "Alice"^^xsd:string and "Fred").
>>>
>>> And I can't seem to find where this is defined, in fact. What am I
>>> overlooking?
>> The first papagraph says that ordering is by "<" where possible so:
>>
>> "Alice"^^xsd:string < "Bob"
>
> [snip]
>
> Ah, *this* is what I don't get. I am probably overlooking something
> obvious but as far as I can tell "<" is not defined when one operand is
> a plain literal and the other a typed literal.
Eric - can you comment? I found:
A < B simple literal simple literal
A < B xsd:string xsd:string
but then in the RDF MT:
"7.4 Datatype Entailment Rules"
xsd 1a uuu aaa "sss". uuu aaa "sss"^^xsd:string .
xsd 1b uuu aaa "sss"^^xsd:string . uuu aaa "sss".
so this is in D-entailment.
>
> I am not being deliberately obtuse here, but I really am struggling with
> finding out how/where this is defined in the spec.
Good to check ...
>
> Jeen
Andy
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 13:53:52 UTC