Re: Hang on a second... Re: Datatype test cases: important ones (please have a look)

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 21 November, 2002 19:21
Subject: Re: Hang on a second... Re: Datatype test cases: important ones (please have a look)


> >[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, 
> >patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
> >
> >
> >>  ><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 .
> >>
> >>  No, it shouldn't.  In simple entailment, the only things known to
> >>  co-denote are identical literals, and that 'identical' includes all
> >>  the stuff stuck on it.
> >>
> >>  We can change this, but that's the way it is right now.
> >
> >It should be changed/fixed. The above entailment should hold. Any
> >application should be able to conclude that any two typed literals
> >which have identical lexical form and datatype URI denote the
> >same value, irrespective of any lang tag, and that conclusion should
> >be possible without any special datatype knowledge. I.e., it's
> >just an RDF entailment, not an RDF + datatypes entailment.
> 
> But its not valid for rdf:XMLLiteral, as I understand it. And since 
> this is now in RDF, some datatyping is included in RDF entailment.

Well, as I've argued earlier, I think the lang tag should not be
relevant to XML literal semantics, which would make this problem go
away since then XML literals would not be "special" typed literals.

Patrick

Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 04:53:49 UTC