- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:31:44 -0000
- To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
A simple way would be to restrict all the syntax operators (= < > <= >=) to the XSD datatypes as per 6.1 of F&O (subtypes of decimal.,integer, float (maybe?) and double, string, dateTime,boolean). A numeric is then one of the XSD types only - no user defined types. To get more general testing would need an extension function. Andy -------- Original Message -------- > From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <> > Date: 19 December 2005 14:50 > > We seem to be stopped on the issue that > "2"^^xsd:integer != "II"^^roman:numeral > will test true in a SPARQL implementation and false in an extended > SPARQL implementation. This comes from the overloaded = operator: > numeric = numeric > RDF term = RDF term > If the right side of the test is not recognized to be a numeric, the > test is whether they are the same RDF term (clearly not). Adding > roman:numeral support allows the right side to be numeric, and the > value is the same left side. > > PROPOSE: change > RDF term = RDF term > to > sameTermAs(RDF term, RDF term) > strike > RDF term != RDF term > and strike > [[ > When selecting the operator definition for a given set of parameters, > the definition with the most specific parameters applies. For > instance, when evaluating xsd:integer = xsd:signedInt, the definition > for = with two numeric parameters applies, rather than the one with > two RDF terms. The table is arranged so that upper-most viable > candiate is the most specific. > ]]
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 14:34:06 UTC