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

Re: xmlsch-02: (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-09-19 (more on xmlsch-02))

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:16:11 +0100
Message-Id: <>
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
>   > 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.


Graham Klyne
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 03:41:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:25 UTC