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

Re: Ill-typed vs. inconsistent?

From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:14:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPqY83ygpPtGe3HqXwZ_Kg8MJ5f1+Krf9D_ENW4ivu1NS6LNUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:

> > The more I think of this issue, the more I believe that ill-typed
> literals should be a syntax error. An application that supports a datatype
> should reject RDF graphs that do not write literals of that type properly.

Not possible unless we are requiring that every parser implement all of
XSD, since custom datatypes would need to be parsed as well. Would also not
be implemented as it's useful to preserve the "ill-typed" literals as
having them doesn't render everything in that file totally useless.

Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 20:14:55 UTC

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