- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:57:46 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>, W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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