[ALL] ISSUE-85: RDF Semantics and Identity of Values

Hi all,

Alex Hall reviewed XSD 1.1 and discovered a difference between the way identity of values is handled between XSD 1.1 and RDF Semantics [9].  Specifically, he said:

[[
XSD 1.1 distinguishes between the identity of values and the (numeric)
equality of values. As far as I can tell, RDF Semantics is defined strictly
in terms of identities (I would appreciate confirmation of this from one of
the editors). To avoid confusion, it might be worth noting this distinction
in the section on datatype entailment and explicitly stating that datatype
entailment deals with identity and not equality, if that is indeed our
position. [For SPARQL, pattern matching deals with identity and the '='
operator deals with equality.]
]]

It seems that we have a requirement to address this issue and have nearly agreed to the resolution, but have not actually decided :(

The RDF WG Charter says that we must, "Consider reconciling the core RDF(S) documents with semantic features and extensions defined by other W3C Recommendations since 2004". [1]

Richard conducted a poll to determine how WG members felt about various interpretations of literals [2].  The results were summarized at [3].  This poll was conducted as part of the discussion of string literals (ISSUE-12), but also asked about numericals.

The following WG Issues partially relate:

{CLOSED) ISSUE-12: Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [4]

(CLOSED) ISSUE-65: Update XSD 1.0 references to XSD 1.1.  We decided that this was an editorial concern on RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax [5]

(OPEN) ISSUE-66: Update XSD datatype map with new XSD 1.1 datatypes [6]

(OPEN) ISSUE-76: RDF Semantics and RDF Concepts disagree on definition of datatypes [7]


So, I have opened the following issue:

ISSUE-85: Update RDF Semantics to distinguish between the identity of values and the (numeric) equality of values to be in line with XSD 1.1 [8]


Regards,
Dave

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdf-wg-charter
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0242.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0294.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12
[5] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/65
[6] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/66
[7] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/76
[8] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/85
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0039.html