- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:33:13 +0100
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- CC: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Jos de Bruijn wrote: > actually, there is a resolution saying that we need numeric-not-equal, > F2F10, day 1: > > RESOLVED: add builtin predicates to BLD and DTB: > pred:numeric-less-or-equal, pred:numberic-greater-or-equal, > pred:numberic-not-equal (they amount to shortcuts, to avoid disjunction). Thanks, yes, Stella already reminded me (that was what I was asking for, I didn't remember the not-equal from the resolution) I now added not-equal for all the datatypes we support equality for. Axel > Jos de Bruijn wrote: >> >>> >>>> Section 4.4.2 >>>> add pred:numeric-not-equal >>> >>> Why? It is not backed up by any XPath/XQuery function. If you think >>> we need inequality-predicates per datatype, I think this should be >>> raised as an issue. I do not remember any resolution which had >>> decided to do such a thing. >>> >> >> There are other functions not backed up by XQuery functions, such as >> greater than or equal. >> XQuery does not need numeric--not-equal, because as negation. BLD >> does not have negation, so one could argue that it should be there. >> In any case, numeric--not-equal can be seen as a shortcut for >> "numeric-greater or numeric-less", just like numeric-greater-equal is >> a shortcut for "numeric-greater or numeric-equal". The question is >> then: why define a shortcut for the latter case, but not for the former? >> >> Best, Jos >> > -- Dr. Axel Polleres, Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI) email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/ Everything is possible: rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:Resource. rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf. rdf:type rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf. rdfs:subClassOf rdf:type owl:SymmetricProperty.
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2008 23:33:55 UTC