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

Re: XSD decimal syntax

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:03:13 -0500
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1129309393.19638.20.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 15:31 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> 
>  > 7. Section 3.  Decimal values cannot be written as literals.  This
>  > seems like a needless limitation.  Suggest SPARQL use the literal
>  > definitions in XPath 2.0.
> 
> In XPath 2.0,
> 
>    3.4 is a decimal
>    3.4e0 is a double (doubles must have an exponent)
> 
> xsd:decimal is now one of the required supported types in rq23.
> 
> In the RDF world N3/Trutle/cwm and programming languages would make 3.4 a 
> double; Sesame makes it a decimal.  I'm not sure where tht leaves expectations.
> 
> We could go either way.

FYI, some community discussion sprung out in #swig. Inconclusive,
but interesting.


should 3.4 be a double or a decimal in SPARQL? 
posted by DanC at 2005-10-14 15:34 (+) tags:
http://swig.xmlhack.com/2005/10/14/2005-10-14.html#1129304057.498099
DanC: afs to DAWG, following up on Comments on SPARQL from the XML Query
and the XSL WGs 
DanC: it's a double in turtle, N3, and SPARQL-last-call, but since it's
a decimal in XPath 2, they're asking us to switch
dajobe: my preference is that as xsd:doubles are more commonly used
(typed) and should be the default. nobody wants to do 3.4e0 lots.
bignums are rare in data
timbl: In favour of decimal: That the coersion from decimal to float is
safe, unlike the other way. That it is a pain when typically currency
values are calculated as floats and end up as long approximate float
values.
timbl:  Decimal support in python 
AndyS: Details of XSD decimal 
logger: See discussion 
DanC:  asking ashok about the change from XPath 1 to XPath 2


http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2005-10-14#T15-22-30


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 14 October 2005 17:03:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT