W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Proposal for ISSUE-12, string literals

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:32:53 +0100
Message-ID: <4DCC5205.7040406@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 12/05/11 21:07, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 12, 2011, at 15:27 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 May 2011, at 13:06, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>>> I'd be tempted to go further and make only the primitive types such as xsd:decimal into RDF canonical forms. This would mean that systems MAY canonicalize all numbers to a single numeric datatype.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean like the 'canonical' forms in Turtle? I may miss something here.
>>>
>>> No. Turtle has syntactic sugar for certain numeric literals; this has nothing to do with canonicalization.
>>>
>>> (This all goes way beyond ISSUE-12 anyways...)
>>>
>>> I was suggesting that perhaps, instead of this:
>>> "+0013"^^xsd:byte =>  "13"^^xsd:byte
>>>
>>> I'd like to say that implementations MAY do this:
>>> "+0013"^^xsd:byte =>  "13.0"^^xsd:decimal
>>>
>>
>> I have not made up my mind on this, just thinking out 'loud': in many programming environment I would like to have access to the fact that something is a byte and not a decimal because the implementation of the latter might be way more complex and slow than the former. In other words, I am not sure RDF should be too 'smart' about it.
>
> +1
>
> Pat

Does this case matter to anyone?

:p rdfs:range xsd:postiveInteger .

might create the expectation that the value of :p has a 
^^xsd:postiveInteger but substitution with xsd:decimal breaks that 
expectation.

	Andy
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 21:33:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:42 GMT