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

Re: SPARQL and string literal matching woes - spec inconclusive - try 2

From: Richard Newman <rnewman@franz.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 01:45:44 -0700
Cc: Nuutti Kotivuori <naked@iki.fi>, "public-sparql-dev@w3.org" <public-sparql-dev@w3.org>, "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <45185AAA-9F9E-4256-AEDA-B7DCE36DBCBF@franz.com>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>

>>> has no entry in that table.  So it's a type error and the FILTER is
>>> false.
>>
>> Is this actually true? See the SPARQL Tests section of the table,
>> which defines a match for two RDF terms. (Of course, they're not
>> RDFterm-equal, so it produces a type error anyway.)
>
> The dispatch to RDFTerm-equals is the place the type error is  
> produced; it's a catch-all and as such must be last in the table.

Yes, that's how I understood it -- I just didn't think that "RDFterm- 
equals throws a type error" was the same thing as "has no entry in  
that table", because there doesn't seem to be anything in the document  
that says that the bottom 5 rows are qualitatively different to the  
others.

Thanks for clarifying.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 08:46:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 08:46:35 GMT