- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:56:30 +0000
- 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.
Thanks.
#g
--
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:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2003 07:19:40 UTC