RE: A summary of the proposal for resolving the issues with rdf:text --> Could you please check it one more time?

>
> From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk 
> <mailto:boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk?Subject=RE%3A%20A%20summary%20of%20the%20proposal%20for%20resolving%20the%20issues%20with%20rdf%3Atext%20%09--%3E%20Could%20you%20please%20check%20it%20one%20more%20time%3F&In-Reply-To=%253C157D907B1AA942CDA17C5D7DF9518AB6%40wolf%253E&References=%253C157D907B1AA942CDA17C5D7DF9518AB6%40wolf%253E>> 
>
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 13:38:29 +0200
>
> Hello,
>
>    
[...]
> [T]he addition of rdf:text to the mix of the supported datatypes adds
> no new conceptual problems to SPARQL: the situation with rdf:text is no
> different than with, say, xsd:integer (there are other examples as well). For
> example, assume that you have an RDF graph
>
> G = {<a, b, "1"^xsd:integer>  }
>
> but you ask the query
>
> Q = {<a, b, "1.0"^^xsd:decimal>  }.
>
> Clearly, G D-entails Q, so Q should be answered as TRUE in G. It is not the
> business of XML Schema to specify how this is to be achieved: XML Schema merely
> specifies what the correct answer to the above question is. It is a SPARQL
> implementation such as OWLIM that should think of how to support such a
> definition.
>
>    
[...]
> The problem with rdf:text is *precisely* the same as the one that I outlined
> above. At an abstract level, it can be stated as "Several syntactic forms of
> literals get mapped to the semantically identical data values". AS demonstrated
> above, this problem exists without rdf:text, so I don't see how rdf:text brings
> anything new into the whole picture. Thus, you can apply to the rdf:text case
> exactly the same solution that you would apply to xsd:integer and xsd:decimal.
> If such a solution doesn't exist yet, then the SPARQL WG should address these
> issues, and it should do so in general for all datatypes (xsd:integer,
> xsd:decimal, and so on), not just for rdf:text.
>
> To summarize, I think that the work from the point of view of the rdf:text WG is
> *done* and that we should not do anything else in this forum.
>
> Regards,
>
> 	Boris
>    

Hear, hear.

peter