Re: [DTB] ACTION 704 completed

>> Re: the first editor's note in section 3.1.1
>> I believe the predicates should depend on a specific domain, and should
>> be undefined if it is not the case that both arguments are in the same
>> value space.
>> This only becomes an issue, of course, if we decide to adopt these
>> predicates, which is not something I support.
>> <snip/>
>>> 1) As noted in the editor's note, it seems to me that
>>>  pred:literal-equal
>>> is redundant. If that is untrue, let me know.
>> this is not true (at least it should not be).  Equality in XML schema is
>> not the same as identity.
>>> Now here goes an example for the problem case, assuming disjoint
>>> datatypes decimal and double (please confirm),:
>>>   pred:numeric-equals("1"^^xs:double , "1"^^xs:decimal) = t
>>>   pred:literal-equals("1"^^xs:double , "1"^^xs:decimal) = f
>> literal-equals should behave the same as numeric-equals on numbers.  It
>> seems to me that you made a mistake in the definition.
> I tried to write down what we discussed, to get a better understanding
> ofg what we want... it was/is not clear to me what you mean by "mistake"
> at this point. If you think that literal-equals should do promotion,
> that is one point of view, there might be others.

Okay, then we have different ideas about the discussion was about.  I
thought the discussion was about replacing the individual comparison
operators with one comparison operator for all datatypes.
It seems that now that you are proposing to add new comparison operators
that are in fact quite different from the individual comparison
operators we currently have.  Are you proposing to remove the individual
comparison operators or do you want to keep them?


> Axel

Jos de Bruijn  
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
  - Donald Foster

Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 11:05:19 UTC