- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 20:58:18 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 18 May 2011, at 20:18, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Q1. Does this RDF graph (written in Turtle) have one triple?
>>
>> <a> <b> 1 .
>> <a> <b> "1"^^xsd:integer .
>
> Not legal RDF syntax, so answer is moot.
It is currently legal Turtle; the former is syntactic sugar for the latter.
>> Q12. Is this true in SPARQL?
>>
>> datatype("foo"@en) == xsd:string
>
> NO. Formal objection.
:-)
> It would follow that _:x owl:sameAs "foo"@en . _:x owl:sameAs "foo"@fr . was consistent.
Can you spell out the steps that lead to this conclusion?
I agree that this should not be consistent, but if we wanted the answer to be xsd:string here, then we surely could modify the machinery to make that happen?
>> Q16. Does the literal in this RDF/XML fragment have a language tag?
>>
>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="a" xml:lang="en">
>> <rdf:b>foo</rdf:b>
>> </rdf:Description>
>
> No.
I note the current answer is Yes -- the resulting triple is
<a> rdf:b "foo"@en .
All plain literals in RDF/XML pick up the XML language tag that's in scope.
(I wanted this to say <a> <b> "foo"@en, but of course I asked for trouble writing RDF/XML by hand.)
Richard
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 19:58:47 UTC