W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: Notes on value testing 11.1

From: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:22:09 -0700
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JMEJKDCPGHHIANHOMPDBMEGBCNAA.howardk@fatdog.com>


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
 > [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Eric Prud'hommeaux
 > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:12 PM
 > To: Seaborne, Andy
 > Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group
 > Subject: Re: Notes on value testing 11.1
 >
 >
 > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:29:18PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
 > >
 > > I went through section 11.1 with a view to implementing.
 > > 11.1.1 Cast of r:Literal : I got lost here : is an explicit
 > case needed?
 > > Seems to say not, because xs:integer(7) is truned in to xs:float(7)
 > > automatically but I wasn't sure.
 >
 > Turfed until later. will attack through test cases. worried about
 > whether ?x => "a", ?y => "a", ?x = ?y is sufficiently defined. I guess
 > it shoudl reflect XQuery's treatment of untyped atomic. Howard?

One slippery answer: it could. It depends on your overall design, which I
don't understand as yet. Maybe that'll come clear tomorrow since we're
scheduled to chat about it. Two questions you might ask (and hopefully
answer) as a precursor to that discussion:

(1) *Why* should it reflect XQuery's treatment. (I'm not saying it
shouldn't -- I'd just like to understand why you're saying it should; are
you seeing for example a clear analogy between the above query and what
atomization does in extracting atomic values from untyped xml nodes in
XQuery?), and

(2) if it should, do you prefer the approach value comparisons take to
handling untypedAtomics, or the approach taken by general comparisons? [1]
Does one make more sense than the other? I don't know if there's a right
answer here; just which makes more sense in the context of your overall
design?

 >
 > Good heaves, I'll be happy when I resolve this issue.
 >
 > > I suggest writing "7"^^xsd:integer if you mean the typed
 > value, not a cast
 > > of soemthing.
 >
 > ooo, good idea

The text now reads (1.312): "For example, "7"^^xs:decimal + "6.5"^^xs:float
would call op:numeric-add("7"^^xs:float, "6.5"^^xs:float)." If you change
the parameters to the method call to

   op:numeric-add( xs:float(7), "6.5"^^xs:float )

the example would perhaps give a better hint of the dynamic nature of the
casting that's being done to convert the first argument to float.

Question: is "7"^^xs:decimal a valid decimal (as opposed to
"7.0"^^xs:decimal)? I know that in XQuery the literal 7 is an integer and
7.0 is a decimal, but here you're actually naming the type explicitly, so
I'm not sure. Even so, might it be better to use the "7.0" form in the
example? Just wondering ...

Howard

------------------------

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0136.html
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 21:22:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT