Re: Test cases for approval

Hi Axel,

For
:a :p "1"^^xsd:decimal .
:a :p "1"^^xsd:integer .
:a :p "1"^^xsd:float .
:a :p "1"^^xsd:double .

You would get
:a :p "1"^^xsd:decimal .
:a :p "1E0"^^xsd:float .
:a :p "1E0"^^xsd:double .

That is, floats stay floats, doubles stay doubles and everything else goes to decimal.

- Matt


On 3/2/2011 10:31 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> Thanks Matt,
>
> just for interest... how about
>
>   :a :p "1"^^xsd:decimal .
>   :a :p "1"^^xsd:integer .
>
> ?
>
> Axel
>
> On 2 Mar 2011, at 14:08, Matthew Perry wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> To answer Axel's question about canonicalization, Oracle canonicalizes all xsd-typed literals.
>>
>> For example, if you insert:
>> :a :p "001"^^xsd:decimal .
>> :a :p "01"^^xsd:decimal .
>>
>> Only a single triple (:a :p "1"^^xsd:decimal) makes it into the triple store. We maintain information that allows us to recreate the original non-canonicalized triples, but SPARQL queries only match against the canonicalized triples.
>>
>> - Matt
>>
>> On 3/2/2011 4:36 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> On 1 Mar 2011, at 19:42, Birte Glimm wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1 March 2011 14:52, Axel Polleres<axel.polleres@deri.org>   wrote:
>>>> just looked quickly over those, manual inspection...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22 Feb 2011, at 16:02, Birte Glimm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> I ran the following OWL Direct Semantics tests cases and they pass:
>>>>> :owlds01 -- Test: OWL DS bnodes are not existentials
>>>> looks ok to me.
>>>>
>>>>> :owlds02 -- Test: OWL DS bnodes are not existentials with answer
>>>> looks ok to me.
>>>>
>>>>> :plainLit -- Test: Plain literals with language tag are not the same
>>>> looks ok to me (but why is this OWL/Entailment specific? It would be, potentially if you asked for
>>>> "name"^^xsd:string under D-entailment?)
>>>>
>>>> Well, another disadvantage of D-entailmen is that the datatype map is not fixed, i.e., there is no guaranee that systems support the same datatypes and one does not have to support rdf:PlainLiteral or even xsd:string, which also makes testing relatively difficult.
>>> The lists in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP or http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Symbol_Spaces (or intersection thereof) could be a start?
>>>
>>>> As I said, I am for removing D-entailment alltogether ;-)
>>> I would like this to be discussed at least once more, it seems there is use out there of datatypes - the fact that implementation do canonicalisation is IMO an indication that something should be done about datatypes at least. (We had some earlier discussion about a
>>> D$^-$-Entailment a while back, but I think just nobody had time to spend on it.
>>>
>>> At least I would like to gather once more which implementation does *what* about Datatypes and see whether there's need to standardise that, before we decide to drop it alltogether... but, yes, it's a matter of time as well.
>>>
>>> Axel
>>>>    Birte
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> didn't look into the bind0x tests yet...
>>>>
>>>> Axel
>>>>
>>>>> as the same literal without
>>>>> :bind01 -- Test: bind01 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>>>> :bind02 -- Test: bind02 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>>>> :bind03 -- Test: bind03 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>>>> :bind04 -- Test: bind04 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>>>> :bind05 -- Test: bind05 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>>>> :bind06 -- Test: bind06 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>>>> :bind07 -- Test: bind07 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>>>>
>>>>> The bind0x test cases are as for simple entailment, but the input data
>>>>> is extended o make it an OWL 2 DL ontology.  The test :plainLit is
>>>>> applicable also under OWL 2 RDF Based semantics.
>>>>> Birte
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
>>>>> Computing Laboratory
>>>>> Parks Road
>>>>> Oxford
>>>>> OX1 3QD
>>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>> +44 (0)1865 283520
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
>>>> Computing Laboratory
>>>> Parks Road
>>>> Oxford
>>>> OX1 3QD
>>>> United Kingdom
>>>> +44 (0)1865 283520
>>

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:13:34 UTC