W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > March 2006

Re: [XSCH, ADMIN] document review and risk for next telecon

From: Jeff Z. Pan <jpan@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:37:27 -0000
Message-ID: <026401c6409d$03ba9340$d3d7858b@Newton>
To: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Hi Evan,

Many thanks for the helpful comments. All the comemnts have been implemented in the current draft.

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20060127/

>In other words would similar queries to the example which
> differ only in the FILTER clause, such as having a FILTER (?size =
> 01.3) . or FILTER (?size = 1.300) . return identical results?  I am
> hoping the answer is yes.

Yes, this is indeed a question on SPARQL rather than this draft. The answer is yes because the = in the above SPARQL is in fact  op:numeric-equal from XQuery rather than using the RDF semantics. 

> Is approximate equality symmetric?  My reading of the definition is
> that it is not.  Since equality was described as being reflexive,
> transitive, and symmetric earlier in the document, shouldn't
> approximate equality also be described with respect to these
> characteristics?

I have added the following texts in Section 3.6 to clarify the point:

"The approximate equality is different from equality and is not necessarily symmetric, depending on the corresponding value approxiate map. The unsymmetry is needed to support e.g. type promotions in the XML Path Language 2.0 [XPath 2.0]. Note that notion of value approxiate mappings is very general - it does not disallow having symmetric mappings between two typed literals. In Example 3N, one can also specify a value approximate mapping from "1.3"^^xsd:float to  "1.3"^^xsd:decimal  to make the mappings between the two typed literals symmetric."

Greetings,
Jeff

--
Dr. Jeff Z. Pan (http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~jpan/)
Department of Computing Science, The University of Aberdeen


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:24 PM
Subject: [XSCH, ADMIN] document review and risk for next telecon


> 
> 
> Per my action [1], I have reviewed the latest version of the XML Schema
> Datatypes in RDF and OWL document [2].  The resulting comments are detailed
> below.  They are all minor, and I suggest that the publication of this
> document be approved for a version that includes any changes that the
> editors deem appropriate to respond to my comments.  My comments mostly
> identify a few typos.
> 
> Next week, I will be at the Semantic Technology conference so I may
> have difficulty in attending the SWBPD telecon on Monday.  My
> suggestion above is effectively a motion to publish, so I should not
> need to be present for a resolution on this document to proceed.
> 
> -Evan
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action19
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20060127/
> 
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 
> 
> Comments on XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL
> 
> Editors' Draft 27 January 2006
> 
> I read and commented on this document prior to its initial publication
> as a working draft.  These new comments are the result of a review of
> latest draft which has evolved from that earlier work.  While the
> first publication was a discussion document which layed out the issues
> with datatypes in RDF and OWL and presented various solutions, this
> document happily provides some guidance to users of Semantic Web
> languages in how to use and include XML schema datatypes.
> 
> Sections 1 through 3.4 are quite an easy read, leading the reader
> through the maze of relevant specifications.  My only complaints here
> are a few minor typos:
> 
> Section 2.3, end of para 6: "the ::adultAge shows which is type is
> being identified."  Remove the first 'is'.
> 
> Section 3.4.2, para 1, end of first sentence: "and entailments do not
> follow, even when counterintuitive."  Shouldn't that last bit read: 
> "even when this is counterintuitive."?  Otherwise, it sounds like the
> entailments are counterintuitive, so why should they follow?
> 
> Same section, 1st paragraph of text under the heading "hexBinary and
> base64Binary", the whole 1st sentence reads: "The final case where
> the value spaces of two XML Schema simple types appear to the same
> are for xsd:hexBinary and xsd:base64Binary."  Suggest changing 
> "appear to the same are" to "appear the same is" since "is" refers to
>  the "final case" and not the "types".
> 
> On Section 3.5, I have a question regarding SPARQL, not (necessarily)
> a comment on the document.  Your example here does not raise this
> issue, but given that we have canonicalization of values of XML Schema
> datatypes, can we assume it will be always applied to all SemWeb XML
> datatype values prior to a SPARQL query?  Also, will it be applied to
> values assigned to variables in SPARQL queries such as ?size in this
> example?  In other words would similar queries to the example which
> differ only in the FILTER clause, such as having a FILTER (?size =
> 01.3) . or FILTER (?size = 1.300) . return identical results?  I am
> hoping the answer is yes.
> 
> Section 3.6, first sentence has a typo:
> 
> "A difference approach" should read: "A different approach", I assume.
> 
> Section 3.6, question
> 
> Is approximate equality symmetric?  My reading of the definition is
> that it is not.  Since equality was described as being reflexive,
> transitive, and symmetric earlier in the document, shouldn't
> approximate equality also be described with respect to these
> characteristics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
Received on Sunday, 5 March 2006 21:38:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:18 UTC