- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 12:23:04 -0400
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > Thanks for the comment. This was a part of the Turtle spec. with > which we were previously unfamiliar. The intent of the group is > that the form in the data be the lexical form in the RDF dataset > being queried against. From your understanding/reading of the spec, > do you believe that representing numeric and boolean literals with > an explicit literal form, > "1.3e0"^^xsd:double > > ,unambiguously indicates the lexical form of the RDF term being > represented? From my reading, I believe that would solve the problem. I should also mention that the turtle spec allows any lexical representation for xsd:decimal values as well, so this might be an issue for other test data. Boolean values (and integers) don't seem to require explicit literal form as turtle uses canonical form when parsing them. thanks, .greg
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 16:23:20 UTC