- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 20:48:17 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I would like to check this line with the OWL and RIF folks. It may invalidate OWL reasoners, for example, that use rdf:PlainLiteral. there is a slippery slope here; that indeed mean that we would change the very concept of datatype maps. I have to ask this: is this worth it? Ivan ---- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net On 13 May 2011, at 19:42, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > On 13 May 2011, at 16:52, Alex Hall wrote: >>> I think the sensible way would be: >>> 1) every literal has *both* a datatype and a (possibly empty) language tag; >>> 2) of the built-in datatypes, only xsd:string can have non-empty language tags; >>> 3) plain literals and rdf:PlainLiterals don't exist; >>> 4) "foo" in concrete syntaxes is syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string. >>> 5) "foo"@en in concrete syntaxes is syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string@en. >>> > ... >> The main roadblock that I can see is that a datatype maps a single lexical string to a value; you'd have to define a special notion of datatyping for xsd:string which is essentially an identity mapping of <lexical, lang> pairs. Otherwise you'd have "chat"^^xsd:string@en and "chat"^^xsd:string@fr with the same value, which won't fly. > > Yes, that's right, RDF Semantics would have to be adapted to ensure that "foo"@en and "foo"@fr (which are now syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string@en and "foo"^^xsd:string@fr) are still different. But I think that's doable: > > Let's write "xxx"^^yyy for a typed literal with *empty* language tag. Its interpretation is L2V("xxx"), where L2V is the lexical-to-value mapping of datatype yyy. > > Let's write "xxx"^^yyy@zzz for a typed literal with *non-empty* language tag. Its interpretation is <L2V("xxx"), zzz>. > > How exactly to distribute that logic between Simple Entailment and D-Entailment requires some thought. You can't remove plain literals from RDF without changing a couple lines of RDF Semantics ... > > This entire proposal breaks backwards compatibility in two ways: > > 1. The following Turtle file would now contain only one triple instead of two: > > <a> <b> "foo", "foo"^^xsd:string . > > This obviously has some serious knock-on effects, for example SPARQL stores that have already loaded this file now need to drop a triple, which changes the results of many queries. > > 2. In SPARQL, datatype("foo"@en) would now report xsd:string instead of ø. That seems like a good thing to me (it's explainable by saying that the language tag is “attached” to the “outside” of the typed literal). I believe this is *fairly* unlikely to cause interoperability issues with existing queries. > > Best, > Richard
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 18:46:50 UTC