- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:17:51 +0100
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "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>
Seaborne, Andy wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- From: Alan Ruttenberg >> [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com] Sent: 3 June 2009 15:52 To: >> Seaborne, Andy Cc: Axel Polleres; Peter F.Patel-Schneider; >> sandro@w3.org; public-rdf- text@w3.org Subject: Re: "do not occur" >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Seaborne, Andy >> <andy.seaborne@hp.com> wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> Are you saying that DATATYPE *could* return rdf:PlainLiteral under >> these circumstances? By my analysis it couldn't, even then. -Alan > > So far as I can see, yes. It's just the "anyone can write it in RDF > now" point. > > As things stand today, the rdf:PlainLiteral doc does not apply - it's > not REC. > > DATATYPE("anything@"^^rdf:PlainLiteral) is rdf:PlainLiteral. > > IRI DATATYPE (typed literal typedLit) IRI DATATYPE (simple > literal simpleLit) > > It's a typed literal. I have no idea what it means or whether it's > consistent WRT it's own entailments but that does not matter under > simple entailment. > > The fact that little if any data (except this mailing list) exists > means I see no problem with this nor do I worry about it. I do worry > about (RDF) data that starts out as traditional plain literals but > may end up as typed literals by some means. That will carry forward. +1 My problem is that Option 1 [1] seems to signal that the sheer existence of such data invalidates the spec. That is actually why I think Option 2 is sufficient/better, as it confines that effects just to anybody who does care about rdf:PlainLiteral (and thus OWL2 and RIF who are referring to it. Axel > You could appeal to messing around with the rdf: namespace and > ownership thereof but the reality is that data does mess with > namespace and ownership all the time. > > Andy > 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0295.html -- Dr. Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 15:18:28 UTC