- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:59:05 +0000
- 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 UTC