- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:29:56 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 18/04/11 00:25, Nathan wrote:
> Steve Harris wrote:
>> On 2011-04-17, at 19:16, Nathan wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Harris wrote:
>>>> On 2011-04-17, at 17:55, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>>> Of course, this is OWL not SPARQL. I don't see any good way to deal
>>>>> with this in SPARQL. I don't really understand how datatype() and
>>>>> such are supposed to work in SPARQL -- are stores really supposed to
>>>>> remember which values came in as xs:int vs xs:integer?
>>>> Yes.
>>> Out of interest, what practical difference does it make? I'm racking
>>> my brains but struggling to think of one, other than perhaps a graph
>>> signing / encryption case for ground graphs?
>>
>> Well, one matches { ?x ?y "3"^^xsd:int } and one doesn't. Both match {
>> ?y ?y ?z . FILTER(?z = 3) }.
>
> Yes, but what practical value does anybody in the world get from
> "3"^^xsd:integer being different to "3"^^xsd:int?
>
> Who is the person that doesn't want the 3 if some(body/machine)
> somewhere once said it's an xsd:int, but does want the 3 if it was said
> to be an xsd:integer?
While I agree that the int/integer is not very helpful, two things come up:
1/ Some users expect what they put in to be what comes out exactly the same.
Even changing simple literal / xsd:string causes support questions.
2/ Should XSD be distinguished?
and SPARQL 1.0 says nothing about data getting into the store.
Canonicalization can be done.
Andy
>
>
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 10:30:28 UTC