- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:25:31 +0300
- To: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Cc: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <phayes@ihmc.us>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Cool. So RDF implementors using .NET can "do the right thing"
when mapping lexical forms to values.
If Xerces provides similar facilities, then it seems to me
that the argument for supporting whitespace processing is
quite a bit weaker, since implementors *could* do the right
thing to pass those tests.
Patrick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com]
> Sent: 28 August, 2003 16:55
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com; Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere);
> phayes@ihmc.us;
> w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: pfps-06 hold off?
>
>
>
> I think in .NET one can finetune the lexical value check
>
> using System.Globalization;
>
> one can use
>
> NumberStyles.AllowLeadingWhite
> NumberStyles.AllowTrailingWhite
> NumberStyles.AllowLeadingSign
> NumberStyles.AllowTrailingSign
> NumberStyles.AllowParentheses
> NumberStyles.AllowDecimalPoint
> NumberStyles.AllowThousands
> NumberStyles.AllowExponent
> NumberStyles.AllowCurrencySymbol
> NumberStyles.AllowHexSpecifier
>
>
> For xsd:integer we actually seem to have
>
> if (dt == XSDinteger) return Decimal.Parse(s1,
> NumberStyles.AllowLeadingSign|NumberStyles.AllowDecimalPoint|N
> umberStyles.AllowLeadingWhite|NumberStyles.AllowTrailingWhite,
> NumberFormatInfo.InvariantInfo).CompareTo(Decimal.Parse(s2,
> NumberStyles.AllowLeadingSign|NumberStyles.AllowDecimalPoint|N
> umberStyles.AllowLeadingWhite|NumberStyles.AllowTrailingWhite,
> NumberFormatInfo.InvariantInfo));
>
> but that should be corrected to
>
> if (dt == XSDinteger) return Decimal.Parse(s1,
> NumberStyles.AllowLeadingSign|NumberStyles.AllowLeadingWhite|N
> umberStyles.AllowTrailingWhite,
> NumberFormatInfo.InvariantInfo).CompareTo(Decimal.Parse(s2,
> NumberStyles.AllowLeadingSign|NumberStyles.AllowLeadingWhite|N
> umberStyles.AllowTrailingWhite,
> NumberFormatInfo.InvariantInfo));
>
> or maybe even
>
> if (dt == XSDinteger) return Decimal.Parse(s1,
> NumberStyles.AllowLeadingSign,
> NumberFormatInfo.InvariantInfo).CompareTo(Decimal.Parse(s2,
> NumberStyles.AllowLeadingSign, NumberFormatInfo.InvariantInfo));
>
> depending on what we want.
>
> I don't know yet for Java Xerces.
>
>
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
>
>
>
>
> <Patrick.Stickler@
>
>
> nokia.com> To: Jos
> De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA
>
> Sent by: cc:
> <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <phayes@ihmc.us>,
> <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>,
> w3c-rdfcore-wg-req
> <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
>
> uest@w3.org Subject: RE:
> pfps-06 hold off?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2003-08-28 11:42
>
>
> AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fair enough, though I think it would be a valid argument that your
> implementation is erroneous for making entailments that are clearly
> in conflict with the XML Schema specs (even if it's useful
> and possible
> to perform coercions to get those entailments) as "10.0" is most
> definitely not a valid lexical form for xsd:integer.
>
> It's not a very large step from there to accepting
> "10abc"^^xsd:integer
> if you have a scanner that is happy to scan up to but not beyond
> relevant characters... e.g.
>
> sscanf ("10abc", "%i", &myInteger);
>
> You're coercion based entailments seem to overhang a pretty steep
> and slippery slope as far as design rational goes...
>
> IMO, if an application "supports" XML Schema datatypes, it will
> do so responsibly, complaining about invalid lexical forms (even
> if it can do something useful with them) since RDF is after all
> meant to provide a foundation for precise and reliable reasoning.
>
> No?
>
> Patrick
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com]
> > Sent: 27 August, 2003 17:55
> > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> > Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com; Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere);
> > phayes@ihmc.us;
> > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: pfps-06 hold off?
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, it's a bit complicated...
> > In our implementation
> >
> > :Jenny :age "33"^^xsd:integer.
> >
> > does rdf:, xsd:integer entail
> >
> > :Jenny :age "33.0"^^_:D.
> >
> > but for instance
> >
> > :Jenny :age "33"^^xsd:long.
> >
> > does rdf:, xsd:integer entail
> >
> > :Jenny :age "33.0"^^_:D.
> >
> > using Xerces but not using .NET
> > where we can use an appropriate
> > [[
> > if (dt == XSDlong)
> > return XmlConvert.ToInt64(s1).CompareTo(XmlConvert.ToInt64(s2));
> > ]]
> > whereas for Xerces we have to rely on
> > [[
> > if (dt == XSDlong) {
> > TypeValidator dv = new DecimalDV();
> > return dv.compare(dv.getActualValue(s1, null),
> dv.getActualValue(s2,
> > null));
> > }
> > ]]
> > because we couldn't find a better TypeValidator
> > (but that was months ago)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <Patrick.Stickler@
> >
> >
> > nokia.com> To: Jos
> > De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA
> >
> > Sent by: cc:
> > <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <phayes@ihmc.us>,
> > <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>,
> > w3c-rdfcore-wg-req
> > <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
> >
> > uest@w3.org Subject: RE:
> > pfps-06 hold off?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2003-08-27 03:00
> >
> >
> > PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ext Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com]
> > > Sent: 27 August, 2003 15:44
> > > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> > > Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com; Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere);
> > > phayes@ihmc.us;
> > > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: pfps-06 hold off?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For example in the testcase
> > >
> > > does
> > >
> > > :Jenny :age "33"^^xsd:integer.
> > >
> > > rdf:, xsd:integer entail
> > >
> > > :Jenny :age " 33 "^^?D.
> > >
> > > (but I should have better written
> > > :Jenny :age " 33 "^^_:D.
> > > here in RDFCore)
> > >
> > > and our answer is
> > > :Jenny :age " 33 "^^xsd:integer.
> >
> >
> > The answer is 'no' because " 33 " is not a member of the
> > lexical space of xsd:integer and thus is not equivalent
> > to the lexical form "33".
> >
> > The fact that you get 'yes' is because you are not actually
> > testing the validity of the lexical form, but applying
> > a coercion function that is not equivalent to the L2V
> > mapping, as provided by a tool intended to operate
> > in a looser environment, allowing spurious whitespace,
> > rather than deal with actual lexical forms of XML Schema
> > simple types.
> >
> > Again, what do you get if the test is the following:
> >
> > Does
> >
> > :Jenny :age "33"^^xsd:integer.
> >
> > rdf:, xsd:integer entail
> >
> > :Jenny :age "33.0"^^?D.
> >
> > ???
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2003 10:25:34 UTC