- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:41:52 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
[...] > Moreover we see that > > xsd:int rdfs:subClassOf xsd:double . > > but not > > xsd:int rdfs:subClassOf xsd:float . > > by similar reading of the recommendation. > > (I am sorry Brian, I know you hate this. I tend to side with Dan in > principle, but also wonder about why we should want to do this. > I am not sure anyone would implement this). right, for :aaa :bbb "2147483648"^^xsd:int . => :aaa :bbb "2147483648"^^xsd:float . we actually are getting a ** Value was either too large or too small for an Int32. so besides those possible xsd-rules we think that builtin datatype handling such as comparing values is also needed -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 23 November 2002 11:43:37 UTC