- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:46:55 +0200
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
xsd:double is disjoint from xsd:decimal, so there is no risk that doubles get canonicalised into decimals. "1"^^xsd:double owl:differentFrom "1"^^xsd:decimal . See http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#equal: "the ·value space·s of all ·primitive· datatypes are disjoint (they do not share any values)" and http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-primitive-datatypes Le 13/05/2011 14:07, Steve Harris a écrit : > On 2011-05-12, at 14:27, 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 > > Hesitant -1 to, there are numbers that xsd:double for e.g. can represent, that xsd:decimal doesn't promise to. Also the canonical form of 1.79e+308 as an xsd:decimal is quite an unwieldy string. > > There are also situations when you might care about things being integers, e.g. ordinals. > > - Steve > -- Antoine Zimmermann Researcher at: Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information Database Group 7 Avenue Jean Capelle 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Tel: +33(0)4 72 43 61 74 - Fax: +33(0)4 72 43 87 13 Lecturer at: Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon 20 Avenue Albert Einstein 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 13:47:25 UTC