- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:06:43 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 10:42 20/11/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote: [...] >Oh, I thought that lang tags simply couldn't be attached to datatyped >literals other than rdf:XMLLiterals, so this would be a syntax error. >That's what the graph syntax rules seem to say. Is that wrong?? Well, I don't think its what they do say. I think its what they should say, but that is not what the WG agreed. [...] >It works but for a different reason. Perhaps I should spell this out more >in the semantics doc. > >Making the denotation be something arbitrary in this case (ie not a >literal value, but otherwise it could be anything) means that the ONLY >entailment you can get is what you would get from basic graph >interpretations, which is replacing the bad literal by a new bnode: Hmmm, are you saying that it does not entail the emtpy graph. I think I wasn't clear; I'm trying to clarify precisely the test case proposed by jan, non-well-formed-literal-2, in http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf The test case is (something like) <a> <b> "Arggggggg"^^xsd:integer . does not entail the empty graph. I think the MT says it does, but I'm appealing to you for confirmation. [...] >5 (??) If all the above and you know from the datatype mavens that some >properties are true on some datatype values, then you can conclude some >more triples using those properties. (Jos' idea) ?? > >Im not sure about the last one: do we want to go there? Please no. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 12:06:12 UTC