- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:16:37 +0000
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:25:44 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >I dont know that. If I had an assurance that turtle would change inline > >with SPARQL syntax then I probably wouldn't object to this change. Its a > >pretty major change to the practical use of SPARQL though. I'd probably > >decide to change my engine to internally prefer decimals over doubles, > >which I'm not that keen on. > > My experience was a bit different - maybe I missed something or maybe it > reflects our different environments. Either way - lets' dig into this. > > I found that in following F&O there wasn't that much room for choice. It > defined the result type of each binary operation pretty carefully and > support for decimal somewhere was necessary because division is defined as > having return type xsd:decimal. > > Steve - could you give some more detail on where the internally preference > crept in - I may well have missed something. Just because if users end up creating them implicitly by using 1.0 everywhere, they will (inadvertantly or not) be using them a lot. - Steve
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2005 11:16:50 UTC