- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:18:41 +0200
- To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Frank: > > Just to clarify: the "model" I'm referring to is that software that > purports to support a given datatype is responsible for being able to > determine the validity of lexical forms for the datatype and, given a > lexical form, determine the proper value according to that datatype (at > least, that's what I understand the "model" to be). What I'm suggesting > breaks the model in the case of rdf:XMLLiteral isn't that RDF parsers > would "pay it special attention" (the "model" *requires* that it be paid > special attention), it's that it would be *optional*. In other words, > if RDF software works for "its" datatype (rdf:XMLLiteral) the way I > understand other software is supposed to work for "their" datatypes, RDF > software ought to check the validity of lexical forms for rdf:XMLLiteral. > > Conversely, would we consider it legitimate according to our model for > RDF datatypes if software that purported to support xsd:integer got the > typed literal "pumpkin"^^xsd:integer for John Smith's age (to quote an > example from the Primer) and failed to complain (or even check)? > I think that's a good point - I'll try and ensure that Jena does check ... I don't think we need particularly to add test cases, but we might want to note it in an implementation report. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2003 09:20:59 UTC