W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Ill-typed vs. inconsistent?

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:19:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+OuRR8gXBNT3ENf5CV9FzM3Ns1TULhnuPZfS=08asMNDagb7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> What I still don't follow is, why anyone who understands what an
> inconsistency is, would even form the idea that an ill-typed literal would
> be an inconsistency. It's not the distinction that needs explaining, it's
> why anyone would treat them as similar in the first place.  Illformedness
> is not even in the same category as an inconsistency. Literals aren't true
> or false by themselves.

I think the divergence of opinion comes from the fact that

* you see typed literals merely as terms (which, strictly speaking, they
are), and a term can not be False; it just denotes something ;

* others (at least myself!) see a little more in them, namely: an implicit
assertion that the denoted thing is indeed in the value space of the

If we decide to bite that bullet, then this could be endorsed in the
semantic condition for a *graph*:

  if E is a ground RDF graph then I(E) = false if I(E') = false for some
triple E' in E,
  or if I(E') is not in LV for some typed literal E' in V,
  otherwise I(E) =true.

The first line (from the original definition) accounts for everything
asserted explicitly in a triple,
while the second line (which I added) accounts for those "implicit"
assertions carried by typed literals.

Do you think it's a clean way to do it? Or do you consider it as just
another "trick" ? :-)

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 10:19:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:23 UTC