W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Re: xmlsch-02

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:18:11 +0200
To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE836E57E.C47DFFC4-ONC1256D91.003CF880-C1256D91.003E1E2B@agfa.be>

Brian - I'm fine with that assumption ie if

:Jenny :age "ten"^^xsd:integer.

ia a logical *falsehood* then anything follows (*)

"ten"^^xsd:integer rdf:type rdfs:Literal.

would follow from the above.

Then also the xmlsch-02 entailments are all positive
and it's really up to something to check our
assumptions (ie detect inconsistencies).

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

(*) ex falsitur quodlibet (I think it was)

PS my regrets for the telecon (I'm in holiday
   and will travel this afternoon)

                      Brian McBride                                                                                                     
                      <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.c        To:       Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>                                              
                      om>                       cc:       Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" 
                      Sent by:                   <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>                                                          
                      w3c-rdfcore-wg-req        Subject:  Re: xmlsch-02                                                                 
                      2003-08-29 10:50                                                                                                  

Hi Graham,

Its good that you are able to keep at least partialy in touch with things.

Graham Klyne wrote:


> While (reasonably, IMO) staying silent about what applications should do
> if faced with text that is not well-formed RDF.

What I write here is not advocacy, but I thought it might be helpful to
pass on something I learned in a recent conversation with pfps.

A point made by pfps is that the object of the triple represented in:

   _:a eg:prop "ten"^^xsd:integer .

is well formed RDF according to the specs.


does not denote a Literal, but it does denote something that is not a
literal (if I've understood semantics properly).  Similarly,

   " 10 "^^xsd:integer

does not denote a literal according to the current specs (given an
xsd:integer aware interpretation).

Peter's point to me was that if it were an error, he would have no
problem with suggesting automatic correction, but he does have a problem
  correcting something that is not an error.

By analogy, imagine you are a comms driver and you get data with a
hamming code for error correction.  If you get data with that fails
parity, its ok to correct it, but if you get data that passes the
integrity check, its not ok to say you don't like it, and correct it

Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 07:18:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:25 UTC