Re: ISSUE-12: xs:string VS plain literals: proposed resolution

On 5/4/2011 11:00 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>> Recommending that stores canonicalize to "foo" would be one way to
>> accomplish this, but only for new data. (And even then, is only a
>> recommendation.) If we changed (or made a SHOULD-style change) literal
>> equality, then the above query would match against :s :p
>> "foo"^^xsd:string as well as :s :p "foo", which -- for me -- is the goal
>> of this issue.
> This should not affect literal equality, which is really about things
> written equal, not about semantic equivalence. "foo"^^xs:string and
> "foo" are the same (same interpretation) under XSD entailment, but are
> not equal in terms of literal equality (they don't have the same datatype).

Right, I understand this.

  I was asking (/ hoping) that the suggestion was to change this (i.e., 
suggest a re-defined notion of literal syntactic equality here). I'm 
less keen on the whole resolution of the issue if this is only a 
suggestion to data publishers to not use xsd:string typed literals. I 
think that's fine, but I don't think it accomplishes much at all (and 
therefore may not be worth the investment in making the recommendation 
in the first place).


Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 15:53:15 UTC