- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 21:26:07 +0200
- To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
that's right Brian, it was an attempt which has to
be tested much better, but it also works for
e.g. _:x"+0010" btw (for the moment we just exlude
xsd:string in the "try numeral-to-number-to-canonical"
another shortcoming is that we have some value range
limitation for the xsd:long and xsd:unsignedLong
in our implementation in Java and C# but there
are possible solutions for that (i.e. be incomplete
there)
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Brian McBride
<bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.co To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jos De_Roo"
m> <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Sent by: cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>,
w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
est@w3.org Subject: Re: details of rdf:datatype?
2002-10-16 06:16 PM
At 11:20 16/10/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
[...]
>Firstly, one cannot presume that all datatypes define a canonical
>representation for all values and thus that it is possible to obtain
>such a canonical representation, so basing anything on canonical
>representations is simply not feasible. Please stop referring to
>canonical lexical forms. They don't exist in RDF datatyping.
Puzzled frown. Have I lost the plot here? It looks to me as though Jos is
describing an implementation strategy for value based entailments. As far
as I'm concerned, that is a relevant contribution.
Brian
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 15:26:46 UTC