- From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:47:23 -0800
- To: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Stephane Fellah" <stephanef@imagemattersllc.com>, <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
While we're on the topic, can I suggest that the DAWG write up a list much like the following and add it to the SPARQL docs? It's a useful test case for implementations to follow, regardless of whether this is the actual sorted order. On 21 Feb 2007, at 10:34 AM, Richard Newman wrote: > > A sorted order would look like this: > > "abc" < plain literal, sorted by lexical form > "horse" < plain literal, no language > "horse"@en < plain literal, "en" > nil > "horse"@fr < plain literal, "fr" > "en" > "horse"^^xsd:string < xsd:string wins out over plain literal's > implicit xsd:string > "horse"^^xsd:xstring < sorting by type URI: "xstring" > "string" > "xyz" < lexical form wins out again.
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 21:01:35 UTC