RE: OWL-Time - issue with SPARQL endpoints lacking owl reasoner

[Now logged as ISSUE-178 - https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/178 ]

Very helpful Antoine. 

1) clarifies what can be expected from a SPARQL engine (no OWL entailments, unless you specifically enable them!) 

2) I knew about the XSD story, but not that OWL union datatypes were as pointless as you appear to be saying. So looks like TBC is cheating somehow. Its doing a good job though - I've tweaked my dataset to mix xsd:double, xsd:decimal, xsd:float and time:Number and am getting a sensible result. Definitely *not* just a lexical op. 

3) but regarding your recommendation, I had more or less reached that conclusion already myself. xsd:decimal really is the only type to use - it gives arbitrary precision and magnitude, just sometimes a little inconvenient when working with the text representation. But since literal types are essentially about the serialized/lexical form, there are really no shortcuts. (You can probably express this more correctly.) (And I won't include the commas in the long numbers. BTW ISO standards officially recognize the French notation - comma for decimal, period for groups of three in big numbers, but I don't know if any computer languages do? ) 

This afternoon I already changed all except time:numericPosition and time:numericDuration to xsd:decimal (even before your mail landed). I guess I should finish the job. 

Simon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Antoine Zimmermann [mailto:antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr] 
Sent: Wednesday, 12 April, 2017 17:33
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Cc: dfils@oceanleadership.org
Subject: Re: OWL-Time - issue with SPARQL endpoints lacking owl reasoner

Simon,


I have several remarks wrt to your message concerning:
  1) SPARQL engines supporting OWL
  2) numeric values in XSD, RDF and OWL
  3) precision & scientific notations (also related to your following email)

... etc ...

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2017 08:29:39 UTC