W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: [DTB] ACTION 704 completed

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:59:05 +0000
Message-ID: <4992AF79.6050202@deri.org>
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> Re: the first editor's note in section 3.1.1
> 
> I believe the predicates should depend on a specific domain, and should
> be undefined if it is not the case that both arguments are in the same
> value space.
> This only becomes an issue, of course, if we decide to adopt these
> predicates, which is not something I support.
> 
> <snip/>
> 
>> 1) As noted in the editor's note, it seems to me that
>>
>>  pred:literal-equal
>>
>> is redundant. If that is untrue, let me know.
> 
> this is not true (at least it should not be).  Equality in XML schema is
> not the same as identity.
> 
>> Now here goes an example for the problem case, assuming disjoint
>> datatypes decimal and double (please confirm),:
>>   pred:numeric-equals("1"^^xs:double , "1"^^xs:decimal) = t
>>   pred:literal-equals("1"^^xs:double , "1"^^xs:decimal) = f
> 
> literal-equals should behave the same as numeric-equals on numbers.  It
> seems to me that you made a mistake in the definition.

I tried to write down what we discussed, to get a better understanding 
ofg what we want... it was/is not clear to me what you mean by "mistake" 
at this point. If you think that literal-equals should do promotion, 
that is one point of view, there might be others.

Axel

-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 10:59:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:03 GMT