- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:58:15 -0600
- To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 16:55 +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 04:41:33 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > We seem to be stuck on this one:
> >
> > == For 1.3 being xsd:decimal:
> >
> > What gets written is exactly the value in the query itself (because both the
> > query and the datatype use a base 10 representation).
> >
> > Arbitrary precision and precision of more than xsd:double (xsd:decimal
> > requires a minimum of 18 digits - I think that's 64 bits of precision) are
> > needed for financial information.
> >
> > It's what XPath uses.
> >
> > == For 1.3 being a double:
> >
> > It's what cwm and programming languages do. Note many programming
> > languages interpret 1/3 as integer divide (i.e. result integer 1)
> >
> > It's what SPARQL does at the moment.
>
> The turtle thing is a big deal, if 1.0 is a decimal, then:
> SELECT * WHERE { [] rdf:value 1.0 . }
> does not match
> [] rdf:value 1.0 .
>
> That's a big drawback IMHO.
You don't think turtle would follow SPARQL and migrate to decimal?
> Given that decimals are relatively rare in RDF data in my experience,
> having to write "1.0"^^xsd:decimal or 1.0/1 is not that big a deal, its
> the same with xsd:float.
>
> - Steve
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 16:58:26 UTC