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

On May 4, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> 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).

Can you elaborate on what you mean? It seems kind of obvious that 




are not the same literal. (Just look at them: they are not the same.)  Are you wanting to replace these by something else, something more abstract, that these are alternative surface forms for? If so, what would the type of this new thing be? What would its syntax be like? 


> 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).
> Lee

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 16:57:12 UTC