- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:08:21 +0000
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 10/11/11 05:50, Ivan Herman wrote: > 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. +1 > > Ivan > > > >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 15:08:56 UTC