- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:50:54 +0100
- To: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 9 Nov 2011, at 21:53, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > > RDF-ISSUE-79 (undefined-datatype): What is the value of a literal whose datatype IRI is not a datatype? [RDF Concepts] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/79 > > Raised by: Richard Cyganiak > On product: RDF Concepts > > The RDF Concepts spec (in both 2004 and 1.1 versions) does not answer the question what's the value of a literal where the datatype IRI doesn't actually denote a datatype, like <"foo",http://example.com/not-a-datatype>. This is surprising, as there is a section that normatively defines the value of *all other* literals. > > There are many possibilities: > > (i) the spec leaves it undefined > (ii) that's not a valid RDF graph > (iii) it's a valid RDF graph, but the value, if any, is unknown > (iv) it's a valid RDF graph, and the literal is ill-typed > > This should be made explicit. > > The status quo is (i). I believe that the model theory says it's (iii). In a way, (iii), if indeed that is the case, is also the status quo. In any case, (iii) sounds ok to me. Ivan > > >
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 05:51:28 UTC