- 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