ISSUE-84: "Bug" in D-entailment with literals in non-canonical form

d-entailment-typed-literals

"Bug" in D-entailment with literals in non-canonical form

State:

CLOSED

Product:

RDF Semantics

Raised by:

Antoine Zimmermann

Opened on:

2012-02-24

Description:

With the current spec, we have the following situation for D-entailment, when the datatype map contains xsd:decimal (for instance):

:foo :bar "2"^^xsd:decimal .

*does not* D-entail:

:foo :bar "2.0"^^xsd:decimal .

This is because an interpretation is defined relatively to a vocabulary V, so that only the names in V are interpreted. If a triple contains a name that is not present in V, then the triple is necessarily unsatisfied. This is made very explicit in the RDF Semantics document:

"If the vocabulary of an RDF graph contains names that are not in the vocabulary of an interpretation I - that is, if I simply does not give a semantic value to some name that is used in the graph - then these truth-conditions will always yield the value false for some triple in the graph, and hence for the graph itself."

Since "2"^^xsd:decimal and "2.0"^^xsd:decimal are two different names (although denoting the same thing), the first triple can be satisfied by a D-interpretation that does not interpret "2.0"^^xsd:decimal, thus the second triple does not follow from the first one.

This is probably not in line with how implementations work and the problem seem to be present in OWL 2 RDF-based semantics as well.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: ISSUE-84: proposed solution (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-11-06)
2. ISSUE-84: proposed solution (from antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr on 2012-11-06)
3. Re: Test cases and examples for dataset entailment (from antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr on 2012-09-11)
4. Re: Test cases and examples for dataset entailment (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2012-09-11)
5. Re: Test cases and examples for dataset entailment (from antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr on 2012-09-11)
6. Re: Updated some tests (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-03-08)
7. Re: RDF-ISSUE-84 (d-entailment-typed-literals): 'Bug' in D-entailment with literals in non-canonical form [RDF Semantics] (from antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr on 2012-02-24)
8. Re: RDF-ISSUE-84 (d-entailment-typed-literals): 'Bug' in D-entailment with literals in non-canonical form [RDF Semantics] (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-02-24)
9. Re: RDF-ISSUE-84 (d-entailment-typed-literals): 'Bug' in D-entailment with literals in non-canonical form [RDF Semantics] (from antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr on 2012-02-24)
10. Re: RDF-ISSUE-84 (d-entailment-typed-literals): 'Bug' in D-entailment with literals in non-canonical form [RDF Semantics] (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-02-24)
11. RDF-ISSUE-84 (d-entailment-typed-literals): 'Bug' in D-entailment with literals in non-canonical form [RDF Semantics] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-02-24)

Related notes:

Display change log