Re: details of rdf:datatype?

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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org>
Sent: 14 October, 2002 17:57
Subject: Re: details of rdf:datatype?


> 
> 
> > I'm puzzling thru the details of the [6Sep] decision.
> >
> > It seems to specify that this holds:
> >
> >          :jenny :age <...#integer>"10".
> > =>
> >          :jenny :age <...#decimal>"10".
> >
> >
> > since those two literals denote the same value.
> >
> > and this one holds:
> >
> >          :jenny :age <...#decimal>"010".
> > =>
> >          :jenny :age <...#decimal>"10".
> >
> > If somebody would please confirm, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> I'm convinced that above 2 cases must hold

They cannot hold based solely on the RDF MT, which has no
clue what those datatypes are and whether there is any
intersection between their value spaces and lexical to
value mappings.

> it's a straightforward job for a parser to do your
> "recognizing" for the primitive XML Schema datatypes
> (at least that's our actual experience)

It's straightforward for an application which groks the
datatypes to test the above entailments, yes, but they
are not RDF-entailments.

> > But I don't see how this works for an open-ended set
> > of datatypes. Does this hold?
> 
> open ended will be incomplete by necessity I would think

There will always be cases where typed literals are expressed
in terms of datatypes that some application does not understand,
in which case, that application is unnable to compare the
denoted value with any other in any meaningful way. Cest la vie.

Patrick

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 03:04:03 UTC