- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:58:54 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>, W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 29/03/11 18:52, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On 29 Mar 2011, at 18:46, Bijan Parsia wrote: > >> On 29 Mar 2011, at 18:19, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >>> On 29/03/11 18:04, Bijan Parsia wrote: >>>> On 29 Mar 2011, at 17:54, Birte Glimm wrote: > [snip] >>>> Are you using Schema 1.1 (recommended even though not a recommendation!). >>> >>> Curious - why? >> >> My and Boris's experience in the OWL WG is that the 1.1 specs are *much* superior in organization, clarity, and detail and well as nailing down various aspects. > [snip] > > We also thought it was going to be done "soon" :) > > Note that 1.1. seems to be what Oracle is doing (no surprise, their being still active in the XS group). Always possible as SPARQL Query says nothing about processing the data getting into the dataset so the fact the original data says xsd:integer and the results say xsd:decimal is explainable. Helpful if the SPARQL query also has canonicalization applied on parsing. SPARQL Update is interesting. Andy > > Cheers, > Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 18:59:37 UTC