- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:32:53 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 12/05/11 21:07, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On May 12, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > >> >> On May 12, 2011, at 15:27 , Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> >>> On 12 May 2011, at 13:06, Ivan Herman wrote: >>>>> I'd be tempted to go further and make only the primitive types such as xsd:decimal into RDF canonical forms. This would mean that systems MAY canonicalize all numbers to a single numeric datatype. >>>> >>>> Do you mean like the 'canonical' forms in Turtle? I may miss something here. >>> >>> No. Turtle has syntactic sugar for certain numeric literals; this has nothing to do with canonicalization. >>> >>> (This all goes way beyond ISSUE-12 anyways...) >>> >>> I was suggesting that perhaps, instead of this: >>> "+0013"^^xsd:byte => "13"^^xsd:byte >>> >>> I'd like to say that implementations MAY do this: >>> "+0013"^^xsd:byte => "13.0"^^xsd:decimal >>> >> >> I have not made up my mind on this, just thinking out 'loud': in many programming environment I would like to have access to the fact that something is a byte and not a decimal because the implementation of the latter might be way more complex and slow than the former. In other words, I am not sure RDF should be too 'smart' about it. > > +1 > > Pat Does this case matter to anyone? :p rdfs:range xsd:postiveInteger . might create the expectation that the value of :p has a ^^xsd:postiveInteger but substitution with xsd:decimal breaks that expectation. Andy
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 21:33:23 UTC