- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:26:19 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > We know that: > > > > <a> <b> "foo"@@en#<datatype> . > > <c> <d> "foo"@@fr#<datatype> . > > > > entails > > > > <a> <b> _:l . > > <c> <d> _:l . > > > > for all datatypes except rdf:XMLLiteral. Is this _really_ the case? I thought we'd got _distinct_ literal nodes for "foo"^^<datatype>, "foo"@en^^<datatype> and "foo"@fr<datatype> in the abstract syntax; then it's down to a _datatype_ entailment to throw away the language tag if it's unimportant. That is, <eg:foo> <eg:bar> "10"@en^^<xsd:integer> . datatype[xsd:integer]-entails <eg:foo> <eg:bar> "10"@fr^^<xsd:integer> . analogously to the dataype[xsd:integer]-entailment of <eg:foo> <eg:bar> "010"^^<xsd:integer> . Thus datatypes that care about language tags have them available for the lexical->value mapping if required...? I'd understood that we'd got tidy, lang-tagged, datatyped literals behaving themselves as of several telecons ago. Is it really the case that <eg:foo> <eg:bar> "baz"@en^^<datatype> . <eg:pop> <eg:bar> "baz"@fr^^<datatype> . simple-entails <eg:foo> <eg:bar> _:l . <eg:pop> <eg:bar> _:l . ?? Argh, jan -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ On modesty: whoever said "it's hard being perfect" obviously wasn't me.
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 10:27:10 UTC