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

Re: Meeting minutes 8 August 2006

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:12:33 +0200
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20060815141233.GF6336@w3.org>

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 02:57:06PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> The value testing was written up in
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0086.html
> 
> which gives a different truth table from the minutes below.

But this is just a question of what truth table we are describing, the
one for operator= or the one for RDFterm-equal. At any rate, I don't
see where the proposed design differs from value-compare except
editorially in that it keeps the bindings to XPath operators in the
main table rather than a separate description of value-compare.

> 	Andy
> 
> Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > ---------- http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes ----------
> 
> >
> >    I think that "'II'^^roman:numeral = 2" has the same behavoir if backed
> >    by either "sop:value-compare(A,B) == -1" or "op:numeric-less-than(A,
> >    B)"
> >
> >    <AndyS> "'II'^^roman:numeral = 2" is error if Roman numerals are
> >    unknown
> >
> >    A = B RDF termRDF termRDFterm-equal(A, B)
> >
> >    A = B RDF term RDF term RDFterm-equal(A, B)
> >
> >    <kendallclark> Does anyone have a proposal for leading us out of this?
> >    It's starting to seem a bit like a morass...
> >
> >    <patH> if I followed it, this seems to work
> >
> >    <AndyS> I believe sop:value-comapre does it - I'm willing to flesh it
> >    out.
> >
> >    <AndyS> It obeys the "every problem needs an extra level of
> >    indirection" maxim
> >
> >    <kendallclark> :)
> >
> >    <patH> whoops, that was a reference to andys mesage of a few days ago.
> >
> >    number = number
> >
> >    date = date
> >
> >    string = string
> >
> >    --------------------
> >
> >    IRI = IRI
> >
> >    bNode = bNode
> >
> >    <fred> literal = literal: true or error
> >
> >    <fred> iri = iri: true or false
> >
> >    <fred> bnode = bnode: true or false
> >
> >    <fred> allother cells always false
> >
> >    2=3
> >
> >    <AndyS> Yes, Fred - that's the table I was thing of.
> >
> >    <AndyS> bNode = literal (not bNode in query) may be valid
> >
> >    <AndyS> Separate sameLiteral operator.
> >
> >    <AndyS> if we want a syntactic comparision
> >
> >    <AndyS> "(x,y)"^^:geo
> >
> >    <AndyS> If you want help with this, do ask - I'm the one keen to have
> >    this extensibility so I feel responsible here.
> >
> >    <kendallclark> ACTION: EricP to redraft section 11 to support
> >    extensible datatypes [recorded in
> >    [18]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action08]
> >
> >    <AndyS> sop:vaue-compare should return symbols for LE, GT, EQ and NE
> >    (or error)
> >
> 
> 

-- 
-eric

home-office: +1.617.395.1213 (usually 900-2300 CET)
	    +33.1.45.35.62.14
cell:       +33.6.73.84.87.26

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 14:11:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:27 GMT