Re: ACTION-419: Sync with Birte on Datatypes for canonicalisation

Ok, thanks Andy. Then I did it right.
Birte

On 28 March 2011 12:53, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 27/03/11 22:33, Birte Glimm wrote:
>>
>> Matt, others,
>> I have updated the D-Entailment Regime to require a datatype map with
>> at least the datatypes suggested by Matt. Literal solutions can only
>> be canonical representations. I am not quite sure how to interpret XSD
>> Schema Datatypes though for integers. Normally, the canonicalized
>> values are always for the primitive type, but that would require that
>> the canonical representation is inherited from decimal. However,
>> "10.0"^^xsd:decimal is the canonical representation for 10 as I
>> understand it, but integers shouldn't have a decimal point. Thus,
>> "10.0"^^xsd:decimal can hardly be the canonical representation for
>> "10"^^xsd:integer. Instead I assume that "10"^^xsd:integer is the
>> canonical form of "10"^^xsd:integer, but also of "010"^^xsd:integer,
>> "+10"^^xsd:integer, and also "10"^^xsd:short or "10"^^xsd:byte. Anyone
>> with a better understandingthan me? Am I right in assuing that this is
>> how I should understand the spec?
>
> That's how I read it:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#decimal-canonical-representation
>
> Decimal is 10.0, integer is 10 and derived types from integer are the same
> as integer canonical form.
>
>        Andy
>
>>
>> Here's the updated D-ent. regime:
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml#d-entailment
>>
>> Regards,
>> Birte
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520

Received on Monday, 28 March 2011 12:58:18 UTC