- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:05:27 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "sandro@w3.org" <sandro@w3.org>, "public-rdf-text@w3.org" <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
> Incidentally, the fact that you can filter using the DATATYPE function > in sparql is another hint that something is amiss. By my earlier > analysis, the DATATYPE function should never return rdf:PlainLiteral, > according to our spec. > > -Alan Quite - only if the new text is in force and then only if suitable D-entailment is being applied or the data path goes through OWL2. If there is current RDF data that writes directly ^^rdf:PlainLiteral, and is queried as simple entailment, the answer to DATATYPE is rdf:PlainLiteral. Otherwise there is a (small) backwards-incompatible change required of existing SPARQL implementations (the current SPARQL-WG is technically not chartered to make that change but lets do the right thing, he said unofficially). Andy
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 10:07:13 UTC