W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: details of rdf:datatype?

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 21:26:07 +0200
To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFAFC6D16C.EB56E496-ONC1256C54.0069F87E-C1256C54.006AC604@agfa.be>


that's right Brian, it was an attempt which has to
be tested much better, but it also works for
e.g. _:x"+0010" btw (for the moment we just exlude
xsd:string in the "try numeral-to-number-to-canonical"
another shortcoming is that we have some value range
limitation for the xsd:long and xsd:unsignedLong
in our implementation in Java and C# but there
are possible solutions for that (i.e. be incomplete
there)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                        
                    Brian McBride                                                                                       
                    <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.co       To:     "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jos De_Roo" 
                    m>                         <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>                                          
                    Sent by:                  cc:     "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>,        
                    w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ        "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>                            
                    est@w3.org                Subject:     Re: details of rdf:datatype?                                 
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        
                    2002-10-16 06:16 PM                                                                                 
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        





At 11:20 16/10/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:

[...]


>Firstly, one cannot presume that all datatypes define a canonical
>representation for all values and thus that it is possible to obtain
>such a canonical representation, so basing anything on canonical
>representations is simply not feasible. Please stop referring to
>canonical lexical forms. They don't exist in RDF datatyping.

Puzzled frown.  Have I lost the plot here?  It looks to me as though Jos is

describing an implementation strategy for value based entailments.  As far
as I'm concerned, that is a relevant contribution.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 15:26:46 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:26 EDT