W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: pfps-08 last call comment on typed literals

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 06:44:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030501.064400.87607066.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: Re: pfps-08 last call comment on typed literals
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:51:43 -0500

> Peter,
> In
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0087.html
> you raised a last call comment on the RDFCore WD's which was recorded as:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-8
> The WG has previously decided to reject this comment:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0537.html
> However, subsequent work has suggested that we reconsider this decision.
> The treatment of XML literals currently proposed would retain the 
> 'simple' version (in which the literals are treated as a special 
> lexical form) in RDF and RDFS interpretations, but treat 
> rdf:XMLliteral as denoting a datatype object in D-interpretations.
> This would support the entailment you refer to in all datatyped 
> interpretations, for typed literals which do not contain language 
> tags.  It would not, however, support an inference of the following 
> form (in Ntriples):
> ex:bar owl:sameIndividualAs rdf:XMLLiteral .
> ex:s ex:p "foo"@tag^^rdf:XMLLiteral .
> |-
> ex:s ex:p "foo"@tag^^ex:bar
> since the RDF semantic conditions require that language tags are 
> ignored in non-XML typed literals.
> Please let us know whether this would be acceptable.
> Pat Hayes

I do not view this as a satisfactory solution to my issue.

I do not even view it as in any way better than the previous state of

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 06:44:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:02 UTC