- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 01 Aug 2002 17:51:12 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 16:29, Graham Klyne wrote: [...] > My own particular pet peeve with XML schema datatypes is the lack of a > rational number primitive (my comment was submitted to, considered and > rejected by XML schema WG). Sorry about that; I agree, but I didn't have the energy to fight harder. I did put the HTTP-NG type system on the table, which had a nice design for rationals (hm... reviewing, it seems to be fixed-point, not rationals... anyway...). Sigh. > To my view, this should be the concept from > which all other numeric data types are derived, by restriction. (All > schemes for representing numbers in a computer that I'm aware of represent > rational numbers only.) Well, floating point numbers are not restrictions of rationals. Floating point multiplication and addition are not, strictly speaking, associative. There's a great piece on that in the proceedings of the WG... (searching, I find one of my contributions... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000JanMar/0131.html ) Aha! there it is: Floating-point datatypes are not real datatypes Mark Reinhold <mr@eng.sun.com> 5 October 1999 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000JanMar/0130.html > I've no objection that RDF should be able to use XML schema datatypes, but > I already know of applications where they aren't enough. CONNEG uses > rational numbers, and we're working to make CONNEG vocabulary accessible to > CC/PP. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you in Montreal in August at Extreme Markup 2002?
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 18:50:47 UTC