- From: Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 12:35:30 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <27D04D21-D40E-4D5D-8F42-44F5B0973C00@garlik.com>
<snip/> On 18 May 2011, at 19:22, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > The RDF 1.1 Literal Quiz > ------------------------ > > Let's pretend we live in the future and RDF 1.1 has just been published, including this working group's attempt to clean up string literals. > > Now here's a quiz with some RDF trivia questions. > > What are the answers that you'd like to see? Please keep them short -- along the lines of “Yes”, “No”, “Don't care”, “Don't prefer but ok”, “Oh yes please please please”, “WTF!?!?”, “Formal objection!” > > (I tried to phrase the questions in terms of user-visible behaviour and not spec-internal mechanisms. I hope we can get some non-controversial test cases out of this, and pinpoint where we disagree on desired behaviour. If you provide responses, then feel free to add additional questions.) > > > > Q1. Does this RDF graph (written in Turtle) have one triple? > > <a> <b> 1 . > <a> <b> "1"^^xsd:integer . yes > > Q2. Does this RDF graph (written in Turtle) have one triple? > > <a> <c> "foo" . > <a> <c> "foo"^^xsd:string . yes > > Q3. Is this be a valid Turtle file? > > <a> <b> "foo"^^rdf:PlainLiteral . warn, addressed as archaic > > Q4. Is a parser allowed to unify "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string into a single form while parsing? Yes please > > Q5. Is this a valid N-Triples file? > > <a> <b> "foo" . yup > > Q6. Is this a valid N-Triples file? > > <a> <b> "foo"^^rdf:PlainLiteral . as above ^^ > > Q7. Is this a valid N-Triples file? > > <a> <b> "foo"@en . Yup > > Q8. Is this a valid N-Triples file? > > <a> <b> "foo"^^xsd:string . Yup > > Q9. Is this true in SPARQL? > > datatype("foo") == xsd:string yes > > Q10. Is this true in SPARQL? > > datatype("foo") == error no > > Q11. Is this true in SPARQL? > > datatype("foo") == rdf:PlainLiteral no > > Q12. Is this true in SPARQL? > > datatype("foo"@en) == xsd:string yes > > Q13. Is this true in SPARQL? > > datatype("foo"@en) == error no > > Q14. Is this true in SPARQL? > > datatype("foo"@en) == rdf:PlainLiteral no thanks > > Q15. Is this true in SPARQL? > > datatype("foo"@en) == rdflang:en no > > 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> yes, as now > > Q17. Does the literal in this RDF/XML fragment have a language tag? > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="a" xml:lang="en"> > <rdf:b rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">foo</rdf:b> > </rdf:Description> yes, as now > > For each of the following pairs of statements, if the statement on the left is true, then is the statement on the right true as well in a system that supports datatype inference (specifically, {xsd:string}-Entailment)? > > Q18. { <a> <b> "foo" . } => { <a> <b> "foo"^^xsd:string . } dont bothered which way round above or below > > Q19. { <a> <b> "foo"^^xsd:string . } => { <a> <b> "foo" . } dont bothered which way round above or below > > Q20. { <a> <b> "foo" . } => { <a> <b> "foo"@en . } no > > Q21. { <a> <b> "foo"@en . } => { <a> <b> "foo" . } no > > Q22. { <a> <b> "foo"@en . } => { <a> <b> "foo"@en-GB . } no > > Q23. { <a> <b> "foo"@en-GB . } => { <a> <b> "foo"@en . } no > > Q24. { <a> <b> "foo"@fr . } => { <a> <b> "foo"@en . } no Mischa > > ___________________________________ Mischa Tuffield PhD Email: mischa.tuffield@garlik.com Homepage - http://mmt.me.uk/ +44(0)208 439 8200 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Friday, 20 May 2011 11:36:06 UTC