Re: SPARQL and string literal matching woes - spec inconclusive - try 2

>>> has no entry in that table.  So it's a type error and the FILTER is
>>> false.
>>
>> Is this actually true? See the SPARQL Tests section of the table,
>> which defines a match for two RDF terms. (Of course, they're not
>> RDFterm-equal, so it produces a type error anyway.)
>
> The dispatch to RDFTerm-equals is the place the type error is  
> produced; it's a catch-all and as such must be last in the table.

Yes, that's how I understood it -- I just didn't think that "RDFterm- 
equals throws a type error" was the same thing as "has no entry in  
that table", because there doesn't seem to be anything in the document  
that says that the bottom 5 rows are qualitatively different to the  
others.

Thanks for clarifying.