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

Re: RDFS interpretation of typed literals

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:56:30 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

OK, I agree.  To check my understanding ...

If the datatype is unknown then we can't know that the literal is not in 
error, so we can't know the value is in rdfs:Literal.



At 09:55 16/12/03 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:

>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.

Graham Klyne
For email:
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2003 07:19:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:26 UTC