- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:19:45 -0700
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Re. my action item from today's telecon. After looking at Andy's examples in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0104.html more closely, his example 6 seems to behave correctly for the issue that you were raising, if I understand it properly. In which case no further examples are needed, and my action item is moot. So let me see if I have got this right. My understanding of your concern was that we had a nonmonotonic situation because a not-equal ( !=) filter, as in example 6, behaved as follows: when faced with an unknown datatype, it would revert to a string-not-equal test on the literal string, and so succeed when the literal strings were distinct but the type URI matches; and then this success might transform to a failure when better datatyping information is available. But this is not what the test examples indicate. With this rule, in case #6, it would give the answer binding [ x/x1, v/"b"^^t:type1 ], but in fact it does not: it gives no answers, as it should in order to be monotonic when more datatype information is available. And the comment on text 6 seems to indicate that 'no result' is determined in this case for reasons of preserving monotonicity, and works symmetrically for equality and not-equality. So, either the tests are OK, or I have misunderstood your point. Eric? Or indeed, anyone with anything useful to say? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2006 18:20:38 UTC