- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 07:35:26 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 05/14/2013 12:20 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Andy has suggested that basic RDF should not have any built-in (required) datatypes, not even xsd:string or rdf:langString, and that all datatypes should be treated alike using the D-interpretation machinery. I peronally like this idea (it just seems neater) but would like us to take a decision on it, as it would need some (easy but) extensive edits to the current semantics draft.
>
> To emphasise, the current story is that RDF entailment requires that those two datatypes are recognized, I guess corresponding to the original plain and language-tagged literals which had no type and were therefore built into RDF syntax.
It sounds like a good move editorially.
What is the impact on implementations? All I can see is that an
implementation that does "simple datatype entailment" would now be free
to NOT see that {ex:b ex:q "string"^^xsd:string} entails {ex:b ex:q
_:b._:b rdf:type xsd:string. } (as you have in appendex A) because it
would be free to not recognize xsd:string. That seems like a
perfectly acceptable change, to me. I can't imagine any
implementation which would do simple datatype entailment and *not*
recognize xsd:string -- that just wouldn't make sense in practice.
BTW, we fixed the parsing rules, so you can leave off the space before
the period in Turtle. Or do you like it?
-- Sandro
> Pat
>
> On May 13, 2013, at 9:08 PM, David Wood wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The agenda for Wednesday, 15 May 2013 is available at:
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.05.15
>>
>> Please volunteer to scribe.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> --
>> http://about.me/david_wood
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 11:35:55 UTC