- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:57:48 -0400
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
Gregory Williams wrote: > 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. Hi Gregory, We've updated all of the turtle data in the datasets and the result data to use explicit lexical forms + datatypes. The test suite archive bundles are also updated. thanks again for bringing this to our attention, Lee
Received on Friday, 14 September 2007 18:58:26 UTC