W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Parsing "18." in SPARQL

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:24:13 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA6D95D.2030809@thefigtrees.net>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I'm not sure if that is an issue here, given that you can always write 
"18"^^xsd:decimal?

Lee

On 4/14/2011 6:48 AM, Birte Glimm wrote:
> Hm, but XML Schema 1.1 explicily defines that the canonical form of a
> decimal that also is an integer has no decimal point, i.e., the
> canonical form of 18.0 as decimal is 18 (full stop to end the
> sentence). IMO it is a bug of XML Schema Datatypes 1.0 to require that
> decimals always have a decimal point, but also say that integers are
> decimals, inherit the canonical form from decimal, but cannot have a
> decimal point. Either XML Schema defines canonical forms per type
> (that would be he best IMO, not inheriting from the base type) or you
> have to do what XML Schema 1.1 does and allow for decimals thatare
> also integers with no decimal point.
> Birte
>
> That doesn't define the datatype URI, but
>
> On 13 April 2011 15:15, Steve Harris<steve.harris@garlik.com>  wrote:
>> On 2011-04-13, at 13:27, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>
>>> At the F2F today, the RDF WG resolved that Turtle require digits after a decimal point for xsd:decimal's. That is,
>>>
>>> :s :p 18.
>>>
>>> would parse as the integer 18 and then a period that terminates the triple. To write an xsd:decimal, you'll need to write:
>>>
>>> :s :p 18.0 .
>>
>> Or:
>>
>> :s :p 18.0.
>>
>>> This is consistent with how XSD defines the canonicalization of xsd:decimal's.
>>>
>>> SPARQL currently parses "18." as an xsd:decimal. The RDF WG suggests that this is a bug in SPARQL.
>>>
>>> (The RDF WG issue for this is: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/18 )
>>>
>>> Our options:
>>>
>>> 1) Agree that this was an error in SPARQL 1.0. Make the same change to the grammar for SPARQL 1.1. This makes some previously legal queries invalid. It also changes the meaning of some queries that were valid before and would still be valid now.
>>>
>>> 2) Decline to make a change. SPARQL triple pattern syntax and Turtle syntax will continue to diverge in this particular instance.
>>>
>>> 3) Ask the RDF WG to reconsider the decision.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> My feeling is that we should regard it as a bug, and do 1). It's potentially out of whack with our charter, but it seems like the most helpful thing for the community.
>>
>> - Steve
>>
>> --
>> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
>> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
>> +44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
>> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
>> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:24:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT