- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:25:44 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Steve Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:58:15 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>
>>>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?
>
>
> I dont know that. If I had an assurance that turtle would change inline
> with SPARQL syntax then I probably wouldn't object to this change. Its a
> pretty major change to the practical use of SPARQL though. I'd probably
> decide to change my engine to internally prefer decimals over doubles,
> which I'm not that keen on.
My experience was a bit different - maybe I missed something or maybe it
reflects our different environments. Either way - lets' dig into this.
I found that in following F&O there wasn't that much room for choice. It
defined the result type of each binary operation pretty carefully and support
for decimal somewhere was necessary because division is defined as having
return type xsd:decimal.
Steve - could you give some more detail on where the internally preference
crept in - I may well have missed something.
Andy
>
> - Steve
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 18:27:03 UTC