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

my action item

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:19:45 -0700
Message-Id: <p06230919c0f547dd207c@[]>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Re. my action item from today's telecon.

After looking at Andy's examples in 
more closely, his example 6 seems to behave correctly for the issue 
that you were raising, if I understand it properly. In which case no 
further examples are needed, and my action item is moot.

So let me see if I have got this right.

My understanding of your concern was that we had a nonmonotonic 
situation because a not-equal ( !=) filter, as in example 6, behaved 
as follows: when faced with an unknown datatype, it would revert to a 
string-not-equal test on the literal string, and so succeed when the 
literal strings were distinct but the type URI matches; and then this 
success might transform to a failure when better datatyping 
information is available.

But this is not what the test examples indicate. With this rule, in 
case #6, it would give the answer binding [ x/x1, v/"b"^^t:type1 ], 
but in fact it does not: it gives no answers, as it should in order 
to be monotonic when more datatype information is available. And the 
comment on text 6 seems to  indicate that 'no result' is determined 
in this case for reasons of preserving monotonicity, and works 
symmetrically for equality and not-equality.

So, either the tests are OK, or I have misunderstood your point.

Eric? Or indeed, anyone with anything useful to say?

IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2006 18:20:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:51 UTC