Re: agenda 27 Feb telecon

Things to think about wrt the semantics:

1/ Ill-typed literals no longer denote.
   Decided by a WG vote (pointer?), so OK, but this is the main change, so
it should be well documented.
2/ LV is the union of all recognized datatype value spaces.
   No visible changes in RDF/S/D, I think, but has visibility in OWL, e.g.,
an
   instance of rdfs:Literal would have to belong to one of the recognized
   datatypes.  This would be non-monotonic with respect to adding more
   datatypes.
3/ Status of simple interpretations where, e.g.,
   IL("aaa"^^xsd:string) = "sss"
   These are possible, but then break down in a strange way when looking at
   the semantic conditions for ground graphs.  They are not
   {xsd:string}-interpretations.

Proposed fixes:

1/ Move built-in literals out of simple semantic conditions for ground
graphs.  Does anyone use simple semantics?
2/ "Fix" datatypes, allowing other datatypes that have language tags (but
no RDF syntax would permit them).  This makes rdf:langString a regular
datatype.   This would allow, for example, internationalized numerics,
i.e., "123,1"@fr^^xsd:decimal.  (Well maybe not using xsd:decimal, but you
get the idea.)  Is this too radical for this late in the game?  However,
who would notice if the change is only made in Semantics, without a
corresponding change in Concepts?
3/ Make RDF interpretations be {rdf:XMLLiteral, rdf:HTML, rdf:langString,
xsd:string}-interpretations (as they are now in Semantics, but I do seem to
remember something about rdf:XMLLiteral not being part of RDF any more).

peter




> On 26-02-13 16:46, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>
>> See:
>>
>>    http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/**wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.02.**27<http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.02.27>
>>
>> Main agenda items:
>> - admin Turtle comments & tests (short)
>> - road to FPWD for Semantics
>> - road to LC for Concepts
>> - reviewers for JSON-LD draft
>>
>> Guus
>>
>>
>