W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2006

[Fwd: Test case w/unsupported datatypes]

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:47:13 +0100
Message-ID: <443BA551.4060401@hp.com>
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Geoff points out that != on RDF terms is defined by fn:not(=) which is not 
what I recall as being what was decided (but then it may be my recollection 
that is wrong).

	Andy

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Test case w/unsupported datatypes
Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:40:35 +0000
Resent-From: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 12:39:38 -0400
From: Geoff Chappell <gchappell@intellidimension.com>
To: <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>


I'm working through the testcases and wondering about this test case:

        http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#extendedtype-ne-fail

which tests the decision that opaque types can not be tested for != . I
understand the intent, but wonder how that is justified given the definition
of A != B as fn:not(RDFterm-equal(A, B))? I guess A != B is in fact
something like:

	if A and B are literals of unsupported type
		A != B is false
	else
		A != B is fn:not(RDFterm-equal(A, B))?

Is that right? Some clarification of this in the docs would be good if so.

FWIW, I think it would have been a better decision to say that RDFterm-equal
of unsupported datatypes is a type exception if the lexical values aren't
the same (and so != would be as well).

Thanks,

-Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2006 12:55:48 GMT

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