- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:10:02 +0200
- To: "Tim Berners-Lee <timbl" <timbl@w3.org>, "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com] ----- Original Message ----- From: "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> To: "Tim Berners-Lee <timbl" <timbl@w3.org>; "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> Sent: 01 November, 2002 06:29 Subject: Re: n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-10-18] > > > > > > >> I feel that "^^", being syntactic, should only be usable with a > >> fixed set of type URIs. > > > >that's indeed better > > Well, the current position is that there isnt a *syntactic* condition > to this effect (how could there be, when theres no syntactic > condition on type URIs?) but that if you use a URI that the RDF > engine can't resolve into a datatype, then it can't draw any > datatype-type conclusions involving the literal. In effect, a typed > literal with an unknown type URI is just an opaque string as far as > the RDF is concerned: it knows it means something, but it has no way > to find out what that is. It can infer an existential, is about all. > > An engine could always throw an exception if it failed to recognize > an embedded dtype in a literal. Does it matter if the exception is > called syntactic or datatypish? . Agreed. There should be no syntactic constraint on the URIs that can be used to denote datatypes. Having a fixed set is non-extensible. Patrick
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 03:10:14 UTC