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

Re: ACTION-419: Sync with Birte on Datatypes for canonicalisation

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:53:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4D9076BE.3000907@epimorphics.com>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>, W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On 27/03/11 22:33, Birte Glimm wrote:
> Matt, others,
> I have updated the D-Entailment Regime to require a datatype map with
> at least the datatypes suggested by Matt. Literal solutions can only
> be canonical representations. I am not quite sure how to interpret XSD
> Schema Datatypes though for integers. Normally, the canonicalized
> values are always for the primitive type, but that would require that
> the canonical representation is inherited from decimal. However,
> "10.0"^^xsd:decimal is the canonical representation for 10 as I
> understand it, but integers shouldn't have a decimal point. Thus,
> "10.0"^^xsd:decimal can hardly be the canonical representation for
> "10"^^xsd:integer. Instead I assume that "10"^^xsd:integer is the
> canonical form of "10"^^xsd:integer, but also of "010"^^xsd:integer,
> "+10"^^xsd:integer, and also "10"^^xsd:short or "10"^^xsd:byte. Anyone
> with a better understandingthan me? Am I right in assuing that this is
> how I should understand the spec?

That's how I read it:


Decimal is 10.0, integer is 10 and derived types from integer are the 
same as integer canonical form.


> Here's the updated D-ent. regime:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml#d-entailment
> Regards,
> Birte
Received on Monday, 28 March 2011 11:54:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:03 UTC