Re: deciding on rdf:PlainLiteral this week

From: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Subject: RE: deciding on rdf:PlainLiteral this week 
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:35:47 -0500

> See the examples in:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0009

Umm, well if SPARQL makes the datatype of "oijoij" be xsd:string, then
it is not conformant to RDF, so I don't think that there is anything
that should be done in the rdf:O(+> document.

> The issue about the results of FILTER functions, all algebra operators
> and how to pass constraints into a matching as some engines might (and
> do). 

> Just saying "results" does not work.  That only applies to what comes
> out in SPARQL results.   
> 
> We have three layers:
> 
> 	1 - Results formats (SPARQL XML Results or RDF graphs)
> 	2 - Algebra and FILTER functions
> 	3 - BGP matching.
> 
> And also the query syntax (4).
> 
> The text only covers (1) and (4).  Change the matching and the correct
> behaviour at level 2 is undefined. 

Well, the current proposal is not to change anything about RDF graphs
*at all*.  Given that I don't think that any SPARQL operations become
undefined.

> 	Andy

peter

Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 16:21:30 UTC