D-enatilment and canonicalization

On 05/03/2010 8:45 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> In my opinion this is a question concerning all entailments from D-entailment "upwards".
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ivan Herman<ivan@w3.org>
> To: Polleres, Axel
> Cc: Birte Glimm<birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>; SPARQL Working Group<public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> Sent: Fri Mar 05 08:08:10 2010
> Subject: Re: [TF-ENT] Condition C2 modifications
>
>
>
> On 2010-3-5 24:36 , Axel Polleres wrote:
>>
>> No objections, but one additional side question:
>>
>> Do we have an issue with systems that use canonical forms of datatype literals internally?
>>
>> Say you have:
>>
>>   :s :p "1.000"^^xsd:decimal
>>
>> is a Datatype-aware system really supposed to return
>>
>>   "1.000"^^xsd:decimal
>>
>> on { :s :p ?O}
>>
>> but not it's internal representation?
>>
>>
>
> This is a good question, I do not know the answer:-(, but is this an
> entailment specific question? I would expect that to be a question for
> SPARQL as a whole...
>
> Cheers
>
> Ivan

There are 2 cases for value aware systems and there are examples of 
systems in each case:

1/ Data "1.00"^^xsd:decimal,
    stores "1.00"^^xsd:decimal,
    matches "1.0"^^xsd:decimal,
    matches "1.00"^^xsd:decimal,
    returns "1.00"^^xsd:decimal

i.e. the original term is stored and returned

2/ Data "1.00"^^xsd:decimal,
    stores "1.0"^^xsd:decimal,
    matches "1.0"^^xsd:decimal
    matches "1.00"^^xsd:decimal (canonicialization applied)
    returns "1.0"^^xsd:decimal

i.e. the canonicalized term is stored and returned


See also "1"^^xsd:byte and "1"^^xsd:integer

I avoided describing them as D-entailment because that really is a set 
of possibilities depending on the datatypes supported and ranges of 
values within the datatypes.  They don't necessarily force D-consistency.

 Andy

Examples:
1 - Jena memory model
2 - Jena TDB

Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 09:06:38 UTC