- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:03:13 -0500
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 15:31 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > > > 7. Section 3. Decimal values cannot be written as literals. This > > seems like a needless limitation. Suggest SPARQL use the literal > > definitions in XPath 2.0. > > In XPath 2.0, > > 3.4 is a decimal > 3.4e0 is a double (doubles must have an exponent) > > xsd:decimal is now one of the required supported types in rq23. > > In the RDF world N3/Trutle/cwm and programming languages would make 3.4 a > double; Sesame makes it a decimal. I'm not sure where tht leaves expectations. > > We could go either way. FYI, some community discussion sprung out in #swig. Inconclusive, but interesting. should 3.4 be a double or a decimal in SPARQL? posted by DanC at 2005-10-14 15:34 (+) tags: http://swig.xmlhack.com/2005/10/14/2005-10-14.html#1129304057.498099 DanC: afs to DAWG, following up on Comments on SPARQL from the XML Query and the XSL WGs DanC: it's a double in turtle, N3, and SPARQL-last-call, but since it's a decimal in XPath 2, they're asking us to switch dajobe: my preference is that as xsd:doubles are more commonly used (typed) and should be the default. nobody wants to do 3.4e0 lots. bignums are rare in data timbl: In favour of decimal: That the coersion from decimal to float is safe, unlike the other way. That it is a pain when typically currency values are calculated as floats and end up as long approximate float values. timbl: Decimal support in python AndyS: Details of XSD decimal logger: See discussion DanC: asking ashok about the change from XPath 1 to XPath 2 http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2005-10-14#T15-22-30 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 14 October 2005 17:03:19 UTC