- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 18:26:38 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 12/05/11 17:05, Pat Hayes wrote: > Hmm, on second thoughts and a more careful reading, I am no longer > sure I like the "MAY replace any literal with a canonical form" idea. > If this is a licence for some other engine to tidy up the literals in > my RDF, then I vote against this idea. Who knows why I might have > chosen to use a non-canonical form? Some people might use the number > of leading zeros to encode precision information, for example. It > just seems inappropriate to give a global licence to 'tidy up' other > people's data. And why do we need this? The datatype definitions > already provide for the relevant equalities, if someone wants to keep > their data semantically tidy. > > Pat That one is specifically called out in XML Schema 1.1. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#decimal xsd:decimal does not carry precision and they have added another type precisionDecimal for when you specifically do want to include it. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#precisionDecimal The precisionDecimal datatype is a ‘feature at risk’. Andy
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 17:29:38 UTC