W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > February 2008

Re: (Un)equality of literals

From: Arjohn Kampman <arjohn.kampman@aduna-software.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:31:00 +0100
Message-ID: <47B58604.3030506@aduna-software.com>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
CC: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>

Hi Andy,

Thanks for you prompt reply. Some further comments/questions inline:


Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> "2001-01-01"^^xsd:date = "2001-01-01T00:00:00+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime
> 
> evaluates to false but possibly for a slightly different reason to the 
> one you mention
> 
> Extensions to additional types happens as if new rows are added to the 
> operator table in sec 11 (11.3 Operator Mapping).  That defines the 
> dispatch to the appropriate kind of operation.
> 
> There is no row for "A = B", xsd:date, xsd:dateTime so it drops through to
> 
> A = B  RDF term  RDF term
> 
> which is false.

Reading through [1], I would conclude that the result depends on whether
the implementation "supports" the xsd:date datatype. If it doesn't, the
result is a type error; if it does, the result is false. Is that
correct?

Arjohn

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#func-RDFterm-equal-foot1
Received on Friday, 15 February 2008 12:32:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 February 2008 12:32:00 GMT