From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>

Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 19:45:59 +0100

Message-ID: <49FF37E7.7030503@deri.org>

To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

CC: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 19:45:59 +0100

Message-ID: <49FF37E7.7030503@deri.org>

To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

CC: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

I think we are overshooting here and disagree that we should restrict the domain. If we want to adopt/fit with XPAth/Xquery funcs and ops and that was the rationale we took, we should not redefine them. We had to do some tqists already, since we don't have errors, but let's not make things worse/even more diverging. At some point we have to accept implementation dependence in built-ins and I think following XPath/XQuery keeps this within reasonable bounds. >> I think these are crucial issues and we need to have at least an idea >> of where we want to go before DTB can go to last call. Otherwise, it >> will not be possible to make any RIF implementations. How about if we simply mark functions/operators which have implementation dependence? but we shouldn't restrict them too much. (I think of something like the starts in a menu which mark some dishes as spicy) Axel Sandro Hawke wrote: >> XPath functions and operators essentially says that each implementation >> can decide for itself which length for decimals it supports. > > As long as it's at least 16 digits > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#partial-implementation > >> For >> example, implementation A could support decimals of length 16, while >> implementation B supports decimals of length 20. In addition, each >> implementation can use its own rounding algorithm for representing >> numbers that need larger decimals. For example, implementation A could >> truncate numbers, while implementation B rounds them. >> >> this poses problems for us when defining things like casting functions >> and arithmetic operations. >> for example, according to XPath casting a string >> "0.11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 >> 11111111111111111111111111" >> to a decimal results either in an error or a decimal of some length >> (given by the implementation) that is obtained from the number >> corresponding to the string by some arbitrary rounding algorithm. >> >> It is not possible for us to define this kind of behavior in DTB, >> because functions are defined as functions: you have some input values >> that define an output value. >> In addition, it is really bad for interchange, since some >> implementations do something, while other implementations do something >> else, and you get no warning. >> So, for casting, I propose to define the xs:decimal casting function >> such that the result of casting a string to a decimal is simply the >> number with the input string as lexical representation, and so we have >> no exception behavior. >> >> We might define conformance such that implementations only need to >> support decimals of a particular length. > > Am I going to be able to use an XPath number handling library for this? > Or would you be making me round numbers differently? > > I guess 0.6666666666666666 (17 digits) might reasonably round to > 0.6666666666666667 (16 digits), but that wouldn't conform to the > definition you're proposing... > > This functions-are-functions thing is worrying me, too. This means list > "union", "intersect", and "except" need to be defined with stable > ordering, I think, which I believe means they're stuck with n^2 > algorithms. Is it really impossible to allow for non-determinism / > non-specification on these things? I had been expecting the order of > lists returned from these operations to be undetermined (which would > allow an implementation to really use hash tables to b-trees behind the > scenes.) Hmmm, I guess there are tricks one could still do -- add a > list-index field, and then sort the final result by that field -- but > ouch.... > >> The problem with numeric functions are similar. With addition, >> subtraction, and multiplication we run into the same problem. Again, I >> propose to define the functions such that the output values are simply >> the decimals which are the result of the arithmetic operations and not >> from some implementation-dependent modification. >> With division it gets a bit more complicated. For example, there is no >> decimal that can represent the result of dividing 1 by 3, because there >> are no infinite-length decimals. If we had owl:real we could still >> properly defined the division function, although there is no syntactical >> representation for the result. I have two possible solutions for you: >> (1) We reintroduce owl:real and use it for the definition of >> numeric-divide (I think we need it only there). >> (2) We define the domain of numeric-divide such that only pairs of >> numbers a,b (if they are decimals) are included if a/b can be >> represented using a decimal. This means that if 1,3 are the arguments, >> the value of the function is not specified by DTB and is left up to the >> implementation. >> >> I think these are crucial issues and we need to have at least an idea of >> where we want to go before DTB can go to last call. Otherwise, it will >> not be possible to make any RIF implementations. > > FWIW, I don't think this is all that crucial. *shrug* > > - Sandro > > -- Dr. Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 18:46:48 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:08 GMT
*