- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 13:55:45 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> Dan,
>
> I think that's a reasonable and consistent answer, but I'll note that's not
> what Perl does.
no? perl's == is exactly sameNumber, no?
== is not the identity relation. you can tell $a and $b apart using eq;
they're distinguishable, and hence not identical.
> The following script:
>
> #!/local/bin/perl
> $a="10";
> $b="010";
> $c=10;
> if ( $a==$b )
> {
> print "Equal '$a', '$b', '$c'\n";
> }
> else
> {
> print "Not equal '$a', '$b', '$c'\n";
> }
>
> prints:
> Equal '10', '010', '10'
>
> I suppose that you could argue that '==' invokes a higher level of
> interpretation.
== is an equivalence relation on perl scalars.
> #g
> --
>
> At 10:50 AM 12/6/01 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > > I think the issue of "10" vs "010" needs to be clear -- you seem to be
> > > proposing that these ares distinct scalar values.
> >
> >yes; they are distinguishable in all interpretations.
> >
> > > But under what
> > > conditions does:
> > >
> > > X foo "10" .
> > >
> > > entail
> > >
> > > X foo "010" .
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> >it never RDF-entials nor RDFs-entials.
> >
> >However, in stuff layered on top of RDF/RDFS,
> >if you added more axioms about foo... say, that
> > ?x foo ?a
> > ?a sameNumber ?b
> >implies
> > ?x foo ?b
> >then you would get that conclusion.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 14:55:47 UTC