- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:16:27 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 03/06/11 11:02, Steve Harris wrote: > On 2011-06-03, at 10:24, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> On 03/06/11 09:51, Steve Harris wrote: >>> While the answer is correct, I don't think this fully answers >>> his query. Seems like what he's asking for is for unknown >>> datatypes to be treated as numeric types (unless there's more >>> information). >> >> I know the second part does but the first part is about "more >> openness and flexibility to SPARQL's handling of typed literals." >> >>> To be blunt, this sounds plain crazy to me, e.g. >>> "23"^^xsd:hexBinary< "24"^^xsd:hexBinary and "23"^^xsd:hexBinary< >>> "ff"^^xsd:hexBinary is a trivial example of where it will cause >>> user confusion. >> >> I agree the proposal of auto-numeric is the wrong one. >> >> "2011-06+01:00"^^xsd:gYearMonth is "confusing" as a number. >> >> Suggested changes of wording? > > Maybe add something like: > > "The group feels that implicit casting of unknown datatypes to > numerical types would be counter productive. The intended mechanism > for datatype extension already exists in SPARQL 1.0..." > > There's also the issue that he's using the datatyping mechanism to > fudge units, which as I understand it isn't really correct, but > that's a separate issue. I'm reading the second part of Holger's message as an idea-of-the-moment because he had/has a particular issue to deal with. I'll made some changes including: """ The group feels that implicit casting of unknown datatypes to numerical types would be a less useful mechanism. """ Please (re)check, Andy
Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 10:16:58 UTC