- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:47:13 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Geoff points out that != on RDF terms is defined by fn:not(=) which is not what I recall as being what was decided (but then it may be my recollection that is wrong). Andy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Test case w/unsupported datatypes Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:40:35 +0000 Resent-From: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 12:39:38 -0400 From: Geoff Chappell <gchappell@intellidimension.com> To: <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org> I'm working through the testcases and wondering about this test case: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#extendedtype-ne-fail which tests the decision that opaque types can not be tested for != . I understand the intent, but wonder how that is justified given the definition of A != B as fn:not(RDFterm-equal(A, B))? I guess A != B is in fact something like: if A and B are literals of unsupported type A != B is false else A != B is fn:not(RDFterm-equal(A, B))? Is that right? Some clarification of this in the docs would be good if so. FWIW, I think it would have been a better decision to say that RDFterm-equal of unsupported datatypes is a type exception if the lexical values aren't the same (and so != would be as well). Thanks, -Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2006 12:55:48 UTC