Re: Type of (the denotation of) a plain literal

> > but
> > :Jenny :age "11"
> > does not entail
> > :Jenny :age "11"^^xsd:string
> > nor does the latter entail the former
> >
> > -- ,
> > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
> My view is that in XSD datatype entailment it does!  At least modulo a
> cleanup of the RDF MT with respect to untyped literals.
>
> This is because I believe, based on a close examination of the XML Schema
> Datatyping document, that the L2V mapping for xsd:string takes Unicode
> strings to themselves.

I'm maybe abstracting too much from the APPROVED testcase


<test:NegativeEntailmentTest rdf:about
="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#test009">

   <test:status>APPROVED</test:status>
   <test:approval rdf:resource
="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0131.html" />
   <test:description>
     From decisions listed in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0098.html
   </test:description>

   <test:premiseDocument>
      <test:NT-Document rdf:about
="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test009a.nt" />
   </test:premiseDocument>

   <test:conclusionDocument>
      <test:NT-Document rdf:about
="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/test009b.nt" />
   </test:conclusionDocument>

</test:NegativeEntailmentTest>


rewriting the special case of "abc"^^xsd:string as "abc"
could work I think, but I see a lot of trouble when
"abc" would be interpreted as a typed literal
(especially for legacy cases)


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

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 18:41:59 UTC