- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:55:03 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote:
[...]
> So I think the above statement is either True or False, depending on the
> interpretation used. So far, so good. But is this an RDFS-entailment:
>
> ex:s ex:p "foo"^^ddd .
> |=
> ex:s ex:p _:b .
> _:b rdf:type rdfs:Literal .
>
> Intuitively, I would have said "yes", but as far as I can tell from the
> semantics spec, the answer is "no". This is an entailment only in a
> {RDFS,ddd}-interpretation, because it is only a D-interpretation that
> places the required constraints on the relationships between
> I(rdfs:Literal), LV and IL.
>
> Am I correct? Is this what we expected?
As I recall, the way we handle datatype errors, i.e. where "foo" is not
in the lexical space of ddd, is to say that "foo"^^ddd is not a member
of rdfs:Literal. Therefore it is only appropriate datatype
interpretations that can make this entailment.
Brian
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2003 05:27:31 UTC