- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:07:26 +0300
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Just to be sadistic... Jos, can you test if :Jenny :age "10"^^xsd:integer. entails :Jenny :age "10abc"^^xsd:integer. Knowing how forgiving many scanners can be, I won't be the least surprised if "10abc" is mapped to the value 'ten'... Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) > Sent: 27 August, 2003 16:04 > To: 'ext Jos De_Roo' > Cc: 'w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org'; Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) > Subject: RE: pfps-06 hold off? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ext Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com] > > Sent: 27 August, 2003 15:52 > > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) > > Cc: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) > > Subject: RE: pfps-06 hold off? > > > > > > > > Well Patrick, in what I have made of it (but I could > > have been making further assumptions) > > > > :Jenny :age "10"^^xsd:integer. > > > > entails > > > > :Jenny :age "10.0"^^xsd:integer. > > > > and vice versa! > > (tested with Xerces and .NET) > > HAH! I expected as much. > > I rest my case. > > This an XML "problem" and changing our definition of the L2V > mapping and our strict view about valid lexical forms is just > begging for trouble. > > Patrick >
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2003 09:09:37 UTC