- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:16:11 +0100
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:44 24/09/03 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote: >I would expect that this is now the case. While we don't know >what an ill formed typed literal denotes, the same ill formed >typed literal should still consistently denote the same thing >wherever it occurs since it would be a single tidied node in >the graph. No? In a given interpretation, was my thought. But different interpretations might assign different denotations. > > This leaves wiggle-room for systems that apply whitespace facet > > normalization of lexical forms to be permissable without imposing it on >all > > implementations, and also allowing a minimal coherent handling > > (self-entailment) of unrecognized datatypes. > >I remain uncomfortable about santioning such wiggle-room. If >Its not a valid RDF+XSD entailment, it should never be made by >a conformant RDF processor -- or at least, it should be clear >that it is nonstandard, and nonportable behavior. Well, I agree about not sanctioning to the extent of not documenting undefined behaviour. The slight difficulty is that because some fact A is not entailed doesn't necessarily mean that it's not true. So we can only say anything meaningful about this by describing a processing model, which I thought we were trying to avoid. I think I'm more in agreement than not, and could support simply leaving the existing test case as a non-entailment. #g ------------ Graham Klyne GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 03:41:22 UTC